Skip navigation

Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Letcher Co KY Prison, BOP, Mar 2016

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
REVISED FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR PROPOSED UNITED STATES
PENITENTIARY AND FEDERAL PRISON CAMP
Letcher County, Kentucky

Prepared for:

United States Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Capacity Planning and Construction Branch

March 2016

(This page intentionally left blank)

REVISED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR PROPOSED UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY AND FEDERAL PRISON CAMP
LETCHER COUNTY, KENTUCKY
March 2016
Lead Agency:

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Title of Proposed Action:

United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County,
Kentucky

Point of Contact:

Mr. Issac Gaston, Site Selection Specialist
Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First Street NW
Washington, DC 20534
igaston@bop.gov
Abstract

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) has prepared this Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of site acquisition and development of a proposed
United States Penitentiary (USP) and Federal Prison Camp (FPC) in Letcher County, Kentucky. This
Revised Final EIS supersedes the Final EIS published in July 2015. The Bureau withdrew the July 2015
Final EIS after consideration of comments received following its publication and to correct
inconsistencies in the Final EIS. Also, as a result of comments received following release of the Final
EIS, the Bureau concluded that written notice of availability of the Final EIS had not been directly
provided to at least 22 parties who had requested it. With publication of this Revised Final EIS, the
public, including any parties who may not have received timely notice of the Final EIS publication, are
being afforded a new 30-day review period within which to submit comments so that they can be
considered by the Bureau prior to and in connection with a Record of Decision for the proposed action.
The Revised Final EIS makes no change to the proposed action, which is to acquire the property and
construct and operate a new USP, FPC, ancillary facilities, and access roads. The purpose of the proposed
federal correctional facility in Letcher County, Kentucky, is to develop additional high-security facilities
to increase capacity for current inmate populations in the Mid-Atlantic Region based on an identified
need for additional bedspace. The Bureau has determined that there is a need for additional high-security
facilities within this region to reduce the demonstrated overcrowding that compromises the mission of the
Bureau.
The Revised Final EIS analyzes the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the No Action Alternative
and two build alternatives, Alternative 1 – Payne Gap and Alternative 2 – Roxana, with regard to land use
and zoning, topography, geology, and soils, socioeconomics and environmental justice, community
facilities and services, transportation and traffic, air quality, noise, infrastructure and utilities, cultural,
water, and biological resources, and hazardous substances. The Bureau has identified Alternative 2 –
Roxana as the preferred alternative.

(This page intentionally left blank)

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) has prepared this Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to analyze the impacts associated with the proposed construction and operation of a new United
States Penitentiary (USP), Federal Prison Camp (FPC), and associated ancillary facilities in Letcher
County, Kentucky. The Bureau published the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed United
States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County, Kentucky on July 31, 2015. In
consideration of comments received following publication of the Final EIS and to correct inconsistencies
in the Final EIS, the Bureau concluded the Final EIS would be withdrawn and a Revised Final EIS would
be issued. A Revised Final EIS would enable the Bureau to provide more complete discussion of some
topics addressed in the Final EIS, and provide more complete responses to comments received on the
Draft EIS than were provided in the FEIS. Also, as a result of comments received following release of the
Final EIS, the Bureau concluded that written notice of availability of the Final EIS had not been directly
provided to at least 22 parties who had requested it; therefore, those parties received less than the
intended, full 30-day review period in which to submit comments on the Final EIS. By publishing this
Revised Final EIS and by providing a 30-day review period, the public, including any parties who may
not have received timely notice of the Final EIS publication, are being afforded a new 30-day review
period within which to submit comments on the Revised Final EIS so that they can be considered by the
Bureau prior to and in connection with a Record of Decision for the proposed action.
This EIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), and the U.S. Department of Justice procedures for implementing NEPA
(28 CFR 61).

PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed federal correctional facility in Letcher County, Kentucky, is to provide an
additional high-security penitentiary and an associated prison camp to increase capacity for current
inmate populations in the Mid-Atlantic Region based on an identified need for additional bedspace. The
Bureau has determined that there is a need for additional high-security facilities within this region to
reduce the demonstrated overcrowding that compromises the mission of the Bureau.

PROPOSED ACTION
This Revised Final EIS makes no change to the proposed action. The proposed action evaluated in this
Revised Final EIS is the acquisition of property and the construction and operation of a federal
correctional facility in Letcher County, Kentucky. The Bureau proposes to acquire approximately 800
acres (324 hectares) to construct a USP (approximately 61,654 square meters or 663,638 square feet) and
FPC (approximately 6,063 square meters or 65,262 square feet) in Letcher County. The proposed
facilities would house approximately 1,216 total inmates: approximately 960 within the USP and
approximately 256 within the FPC. Inmates housed in the USP would be high-security male inmates and
those housed in the FPC would be minimum-security male inmates. In addition to the USP and FPC,
several ancillary facilities necessary for the operation of the USP and FPC would be constructed. The
ancillary facilities would include a central utility plant, outdoor firing range, outside warehouse, staff
Executive Summary
March 2016

ES-i

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

training building, and garage/landscape building. A non-lethal/lethal fence would also be installed around
the perimeter of the USP. The non-lethal/lethal fence would be placed between two parallel, chain link
and razor wire fences. Operation of the USP and FPC would require approximately 300 full-time staff.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Three alternatives were analyzed in the Revised Final EIS, the No Action Alternative and two build
alternatives: Alternative 1 – Payne Gap and Alternative 2 – Roxana. Figure ES-1 depicts the locations of
Alternatives 1 and 2.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative does not meet the project purpose and need; however, it represents the existing
conditions and is analyzed in the Revised Final EIS as a baseline for comparing the proposed action. The
purpose for this comparison is to allow the federal agency to assess the effects of taking no action versus
implementing the proposed action. In some cases the No Action Alternative would result in impacts to
certain resources if the proposed action is not implemented. Therefore, the assessment of the No Action
Alternative is an important component of all NEPA documents.
Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
Under Alternative 1, the Bureau would acquire approximately 753 acres (305 hectares) of land known as
the Payne Gap site. The site is located in eastern Letcher County, approximately 7 miles northeast of
Whitesburg, along the Kentucky and Virginia border.
Alternative 1 would require extensive earthwork to prepare the site for development. Approximately
8,342,922 cubic meters (10,912,130 cubic yards) of excavation and 10,568,450 cubic meters (13,823,012
cubic yards) of fill would be required prior to the beginning of construction activities.
Alternative 2 – Roxana
Under Alternative 2, the Bureau would acquire approximately 700 acres (283 hectares) of land known as
the Roxana site. The site is located 7.5 miles west of Whitesburg, Kentucky.
Alternative 2 would also require extensive earthwork to prepare the site for development. Approximately
7,766,032 cubic meters (10,157,586 cubic yards) of material would need to be excavated from the site and
approximately 7,188,790 cubic meters (9,402,582 cubic yards) of fill would be required to prepare the site
for construction activities.
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 2 – Roxana is the preferred alternative because it best meets the project needs and would have
fewer impacts to the human environment.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The Bureau published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on July 26, 2013. The Bureau held a 30-day
scoping period between July 26 and August 26, 2013. A public scoping meeting was held during the
scoping period. The meeting was held on August 13, 2013, to inform the public about the proposed
project and to explain NEPA and the associated environmental impact analysis. A total of 453 community

ES-ii

Executive Summary
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure ES-1. Payne Gap and Roxana Site Locations
Executive Summary
March 2016

ES-iii

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

ES-iv

Executive Summary
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

members attended the public meeting and a total of 320 comments were received during the 30-day
scoping period. Additionally, 169 letters of support were presented at the scoping meeting, as well as two
petitions in support of the project with a combined total of 124 signatures. Of the 320 comments received,
317 comments were in support of the project and 3 were not in support of the project. Issues raised in the
letters that did not support the project included: socioeconomics, previous mining activities,
infrastructure, and alternatives. These resources and areas of concern were analyzed in the Draft EIS.
The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2015.
A Notice of Public Meeting for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 10,
2015. A notice of availability of the Draft EIS and public meeting was also published in the Mountain
Eagle on February 11, 2015 and the Lexington Herald-Leader on February 8, 2015. The notice
announced that the Draft EIS would be available for public review and comment between February 13
and March 30, 2015. The notice identified the local libraries where hard copies of the document could be
reviewed, as well as a project website, www.fbopletchercountyeis.com, where an electronic version of the
document could be reviewed.
The public meeting was held on March 12, 2015, between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. Approximately
350 members of the public attended the public meeting. Comments received during the public comment
period included 158 comments received at the public meeting; 31 comments received via mail or email;
three petitions in support of the project with 1,001 signatures, one petition in support of the project at the
Roxana site with 155 signatures, and 1,005 letters of support. Of the comments received, 1,157 of the
comments (not including the petitions in support of the project) were in support of the project and
12 comments were in opposition of the project. Twenty-four of the comments in support of the project
favored the Payne Gap site and 44 of the comments in support of the project favored the Roxana site. All
comments on the Draft EIS, as well as the Bureau’s responses to those comments, are provided in
Appendix E-1 of this Revised Final EIS.
The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2015,
beginning a 30-day public review period. The notice was also published in the Mountain Eagle on July
22, 2015, and the Lexington Herald-Leader on July 26, 2015. A total of 16 comments and one online
petition signed by 625 individuals in opposition of the project were received during the 30-day review
period, and two comments were received after the 30-day review period. In consideration of comments
received following release of the Final EIS, the Bureau concluded that written notice of publication of the
Final EIS had not been directly provided to at least 22 parties who had requested it; consequently, those
parties received less than the intended, full 30-day review period in which to submit comments on the
Final EIS. By publishing this Revised Final EIS and providing a 30-day review period, the public,
including any parties who may not have received timely notice of the Final EIS publication, are being
afforded a new 30-day review period within which to submit comments on the Revised Final EIS so that
they can be considered by the Bureau prior to issuing a Record of Decision for the proposed action. All
comments received on the withdrawn Final EIS will remain part of the Administrative Record for the
proposed action, and have been included in this Revised Final EIS in Appendix E-2.

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Table ES-1 provides a summary of the potential environmental effects from the No Action Alternative
and the two build alternatives: Alternative 1 – Payne Gap and Alternative 2 – Roxana. Potential
mitigation and site preparation costs have also been provided in this table. These mitigation measures and
Executive Summary
March 2016

ES-v

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

costs are likely to change over the course of the project as a result of coordination with various agencies
and formal development of mitigation measures with the agencies; however, this was the best available
information at the time this EIS was published and serves to assist in the comparison of the alternatives.
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1
(Payne Gap)

Alternative 2
(Roxana)

• Compatibility issues with
adjacent properties
• Significant impacts to
topography, geology, and
soils
• No significant adverse effects
• Potential beneficial economic
effects

• Compatibility issues with
adjacent properties
• Significant impacts to
topography, geology, and
soils
• No significant adverse effects
• Potential beneficial economic
effects

• No adverse impacts

• No adverse impacts

• No impact

Transportation and
Traffic

• No adverse impacts to traffic
and roadways
• Minor roadway improvements
would be required

• No adverse impacts to traffic;
however, there would be
potential adverse impacts to
roadways
• Roadway improvements
would be required

• No impacts to traffic

Air Quality

• No significant impacts on the
local or regional air quality

• No significant impacts on the
local or regional air quality

Noise

• Short-term, temporary
construction related impacts

• Short-term, temporary
construction related impacts

Infrastructure and
Utilities

• Significant impacts to
wastewater and natural gas
infrastructure

• No significant direct impacts
• Cumulative impacts to
wastewater infrastructure

Cultural Resources

• No adverse impacts

• No adverse impacts

• 2.40 acres (0.97 hectares) of
wetland impacts
• 10,512 linear feet of stream
impacts
• 218 acres (88 hectares) of
deforestation
• Impacts to Indiana, northern
long-eared, and gray bat
habitat

• 2.45 acres (1.0 hectares) of
wetland impacts
• 4,117 linear feet of stream
impacts
• 93 acres (38 hectares) of
deforestation
• Impacts to Indiana and
northern long-eared bat
habitat

• No adverse impacts

• No adverse impacts

Resource Area
Land Use and Zoning
Topography, Geology,
and Soils
Socioeconomics and
Environmental Justice
Community Facilities
and Services

Water Resources

Biological Resources
Hazardous Materials and
Waste

Known Mitigation and Associated Costs
Infrastructure and
$8,895,000
Utilities
Threatened and
$1,030,000 -$1,373,400
Endangered Species*
Excavation and
$217,327,748
Grading Costs

No Action Alternative
• No compatibility issues
• No impacts to topography,
geology, and soils
• Opportunity for beneficial
economic effects would not
exist

• No increases in air emissions;
therefore, no impacts to air
quality
• No construction or operation
of a new facility; therefore, no
impacts from increases in
noise
• No construction or operation
of a new facility; therefore, no
increase in demand on
infrastructure and utilities
• No construction or operation
of a new facility; therefore, no
impacts to cultural resources
• No construction or operation
of a new facility; therefore, no
impacts to water resources
• No construction or operation
of a new facility; therefore, no
impacts to biological
resources.
• No impacts

$15,825,000

No Cost

$732,375-$1,024,355

No Mitigation

$141,116,447

No Cost

Notes: *Estimated costs are based on United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) cost per acre for impacts to Indiana bat and
northern long-eared bat habitat for Payne Gap and Swarming P1/P2 habitat for Roxana. Cost was calculated based on total forest
impacts for each site and time of year habitat is removed. Cost is based only on summer habitat impacts.

ES-vi

Executive Summary
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................ES-i
1.0

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................1-1
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Security Levels ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
Existing Federal Prison Population .............................................................................................. 1-2
Federal Bureau of Prisons Mid-Atlantic Region ......................................................................... 1-3
Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................................... 1-4
Proposed Action .............................................................................................................................. 1-4
General Design Features of the United States Penitentiary and
Federal Prison Camp ..................................................................................................... 1-5
Environmental Review Process ..................................................................................................... 1-5
National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................................. 1-5
Related Environmental Documents .............................................................................. 1-6
Agency Coordination...................................................................................................... 1-6
Public Involvement ......................................................................................................... 1-6

2.0

ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................................................................................................2-1
No Action Alternative..................................................................................................................... 2-1
Alternative Locations-Nationwide ................................................................................................ 2-2
Alternatives Development .............................................................................................................. 2-3
Alternative 1 – Payne Gap ............................................................................................................. 2-5
Alternative 2 – Roxana ................................................................................................................... 2-8
Preferred Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 2-8

3.0

DEFINITION OF RESOURCE....................................................................................................................3-1
Land Use and Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 3-1
Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................................................... 3-1
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ................................................................................. 3-1
Community Facilities and Services ............................................................................................... 3-2
Transportation and Traffic............................................................................................................ 3-3
Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 3-3
Noise................................................................................................................................................. 3-5
Infrastructure and Utilities ............................................................................................................ 3-5
Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 3-6
Water Resources ............................................................................................................................. 3-7
Surface Water ................................................................................................................. 3-7
Wetlands .......................................................................................................................... 3-8
Groundwater ................................................................................................................... 3-8
Floodplains ...................................................................................................................... 3-9
Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 3-9
Hazardous Materials and Waste ................................................................................................. 3-10
Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................... 3-10
Hazardous Waste .......................................................................................................... 3-10
Toxic Substances ........................................................................................................... 3-10
Cumulative Impact Analysis........................................................................................................ 3-10
Assessing Significance .................................................................................................................. 3-11

4.0

ALTERNATIVE 1 – PAYNE GAP ..............................................................................................................4-1
Land Use and Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 4-1
Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 4-1
Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 4-1
4.1.2.1
Construction ..................................................................................................... 4-1

Table of Contents
March 2016

i

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky
4.1.2.2
Operations ........................................................................................................ 4-1
No Action Alternative..................................................................................................... 4-1
Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 4-3
Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................................................... 4-3
Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 4-3
Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.2.1
Construction ..................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.2.2
Operations ........................................................................................................ 4-4
No Action Alternative..................................................................................................... 4-4
Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 4-4
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ................................................................................. 4-4
Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.1.1
Population......................................................................................................... 4-5
4.3.1.2
Employment and Income .................................................................................. 4-5
4.3.1.3
Housing ............................................................................................................ 4-7
4.3.1.4
Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 4-7
4.3.1.5
Protection of Children ...................................................................................... 4-8
Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 4-8
4.3.2.1
Population......................................................................................................... 4-8
4.3.2.2
Employment and Income .................................................................................. 4-9
4.3.2.3
Housing ............................................................................................................ 4-9
4.3.2.4
Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 4-9
4.3.2.5
Protection of Children .................................................................................... 4-10
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-10
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-10
Community Facilities and Services ............................................................................................. 4-10
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4-10
4.4.1.1
Police .............................................................................................................. 4-10
4.4.1.2
Fire ................................................................................................................. 4-10
4.4.1.3
Health Care ..................................................................................................... 4-11
4.4.1.4
Schools ........................................................................................................... 4-11
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-12
4.4.2.1
Police .............................................................................................................. 4-12
4.4.2.2
Fire ................................................................................................................. 4-12
4.4.2.3
Health Care ..................................................................................................... 4-12
4.4.2.4
Schools ........................................................................................................... 4-13
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-13
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-13
Transportation and Traffic.......................................................................................................... 4-13
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4-13
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-14
4.5.2.1
Construction ................................................................................................... 4-14
4.5.2.2
Operations ...................................................................................................... 4-14
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-15
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-15
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 4-15
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4-16
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-17
4.6.2.1
Construction ................................................................................................... 4-17
4.6.2.2
Operations ...................................................................................................... 4-17
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-18
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-18
Noise............................................................................................................................................... 4-18
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4-18
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-19
4.7.2.1
Construction ................................................................................................... 4-19
ii

Table of Contents
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky
4.7.2.2
Operations ...................................................................................................... 4-21
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-21
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-21
Infrastructure and Utilities .......................................................................................................... 4-21
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4-21
4.8.1.1
Potable Water ................................................................................................. 4-21
4.8.1.2
Wastewater ..................................................................................................... 4-22
4.8.1.3
Natural Gas ..................................................................................................... 4-22
4.8.1.4
Electricity ....................................................................................................... 4-22
4.8.1.5
Telecommunications....................................................................................... 4-22
4.8.1.6
Solid Waste..................................................................................................... 4-22
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-22
4.8.2.1
Potable Water ................................................................................................. 4-22
4.8.2.2
Wastewater ..................................................................................................... 4-24
4.8.2.3
Natural Gas ..................................................................................................... 4-24
4.8.2.4
Electricity ....................................................................................................... 4-24
4.8.2.5
Telecommunications....................................................................................... 4-24
4.8.2.6
Solid Waste..................................................................................................... 4-24
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-25
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-25
Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 4-25
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4-25
4.9.1.1
Archaeological Resources .............................................................................. 4-25
4.9.1.2
Traditional Cultural Properties ....................................................................... 4-26
4.9.1.3
Architectural Resources.................................................................................. 4-26
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-28
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-28
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-28
Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 4-28
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4-28
4.10.1.1
Surface Water ................................................................................................. 4-28
4.10.1.2
Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 4-29
4.10.1.3
Groundwater ................................................................................................... 4-31
4.10.1.4
Floodplains ..................................................................................................... 4-31
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-31
4.10.2.1
Surface Water ................................................................................................. 4-31
4.10.2.2
Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 4-31
4.10.2.3
Groundwater ................................................................................................... 4-32
4.10.2.4
Floodplains ..................................................................................................... 4-32
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-32
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-32
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 4-32
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4-32
4.11.1.1
Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 4-32
4.11.1.2
Wildlife........................................................................................................... 4-32
4.11.1.3
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................. 4-33
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-36
4.11.2.1
Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 4-36
4.11.2.2
Wildlife........................................................................................................... 4-36
4.11.2.3
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................. 4-36
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-37
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-37
Hazardous Materials and Waste ................................................................................................. 4-38
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 4-38
4.12.1.1
Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 4-38
4.12.1.2
Hazardous Wastes .......................................................................................... 4-39
Table of Contents
March 2016

iii

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky
4.12.1.3
Toxic Substances ............................................................................................ 4-39
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 4-40
4.12.2.1
Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 4-40
4.12.2.2
Hazardous Wastes .......................................................................................... 4-40
4.12.2.3
Toxic Substances ............................................................................................ 4-41
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 4-41
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 4-41
5.0

iv

ALTERNATIVE 2 – ROXANA....................................................................................................................5-1
Land Use and Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 5-1
Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 5-1
Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2.1
Construction ..................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.2.2
Operations ........................................................................................................ 5-1
No Action Alternative..................................................................................................... 5-1
Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 5-1
Topography, Geology, and Soils .................................................................................................... 5-3
Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 5-3
Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.2.1
Construction ..................................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.2.2
Operations ........................................................................................................ 5-4
No Action Alternative..................................................................................................... 5-4
Mitigation ........................................................................................................................ 5-4
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ................................................................................. 5-4
Affected Environment .................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.1.1
Population......................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.1.2
Employment and Income .................................................................................. 5-5
5.3.1.3
Housing ............................................................................................................ 5-7
5.3.1.4
Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 5-7
5.3.1.5
Protection of Children ...................................................................................... 5-8
Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................... 5-8
5.3.2.1
Population......................................................................................................... 5-8
5.3.2.2
Employment and Income .................................................................................. 5-9
5.3.2.3
Housing ............................................................................................................ 5-9
5.3.2.4
Environmental Justice ...................................................................................... 5-9
5.3.2.5
Protection of Children .................................................................................... 5-10
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-10
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-10
Community Facilities and Services ............................................................................................. 5-10
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5-10
5.4.1.1
Police .............................................................................................................. 5-10
5.4.1.2
Fire ................................................................................................................. 5-10
5.4.1.3
Health Care ..................................................................................................... 5-11
5.4.1.4
Schools ........................................................................................................... 5-11
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 5-11
5.4.2.1
Police .............................................................................................................. 5-11
5.4.2.2
Fire ................................................................................................................. 5-12
5.4.2.3
Health Care ..................................................................................................... 5-12
5.4.2.4
Schools ........................................................................................................... 5-12
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-13
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-13
Transportation and Traffic.......................................................................................................... 5-13
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5-13
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 5-13
5.5.2.1
Construction ................................................................................................... 5-14
5.5.2.2
Operations ...................................................................................................... 5-14
Table of Contents
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-14
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-14
Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 5-15
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5-15
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 5-15
5.6.2.1
Construction ................................................................................................... 5-15
5.6.2.2
Operations ...................................................................................................... 5-15
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-16
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-16
Noise............................................................................................................................................... 5-16
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5-16
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 5-17
5.7.2.1
Construction ................................................................................................... 5-17
5.7.2.2
Operations ...................................................................................................... 5-18
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-18
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-18
Infrastructure and Utilities .......................................................................................................... 5-19
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5-19
5.8.1.1
Potable Water ................................................................................................. 5-19
5.8.1.2
Wastewater ..................................................................................................... 5-19
5.8.1.3
Natural Gas ..................................................................................................... 5-19
5.8.1.4
Electricity ....................................................................................................... 5-19
5.8.1.5
Telecommunications....................................................................................... 5-21
5.8.1.6
Solid Waste..................................................................................................... 5-21
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 5-21
5.8.2.1
Potable Water ................................................................................................. 5-21
5.8.2.2
Wastewater ..................................................................................................... 5-21
5.8.2.3
Natural Gas ..................................................................................................... 5-21
5.8.2.4
Electricity ....................................................................................................... 5-22
5.8.2.5
Telecommunications....................................................................................... 5-22
5.8.2.6
Solid Waste..................................................................................................... 5-22
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-22
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-22
Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 5-22
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5-23
5.9.1.1
Archaeological Resources .............................................................................. 5-23
5.9.1.2
Traditional Cultural Properties ....................................................................... 5-23
5.9.1.3
Architectural Resources.................................................................................. 5-23
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 5-23
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-23
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-23
Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 5-25
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5-25
5.10.1.1
Surface Water ................................................................................................. 5-25
5.10.1.2
Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 5-26
5.10.1.3
Groundwater ................................................................................................... 5-27
5.10.1.4
Floodplains ..................................................................................................... 5-29
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 5-29
5.10.2.1
Surface Water ................................................................................................. 5-29
5.10.2.2
Wetlands ......................................................................................................... 5-29
5.10.2.3
Groundwater ................................................................................................... 5-29
5.10.2.4
Floodplains ..................................................................................................... 5-30
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-30
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-30
Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 5-31
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5-31
Table of Contents
March 2016

v

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky
5.11.1.1
Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 5-31
5.11.1.2
Wildlife........................................................................................................... 5-31
5.11.1.3
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................. 5-31
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 5-34
5.11.2.1
Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 5-34
5.11.2.2
Wildlife........................................................................................................... 5-34
5.11.2.3
Threatened and Endangered Species .............................................................. 5-35
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-35
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-35
Hazardous Materials and Waste ................................................................................................. 5-36
Affected Environment .................................................................................................. 5-36
5.12.1.1
Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 5-36
5.12.1.2
Hazardous Wastes .......................................................................................... 5-39
5.12.1.3
Toxic Substances ............................................................................................ 5-40
Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................... 5-40
5.12.2.1
Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................... 5-40
5.12.2.2
Hazardous Wastes .......................................................................................... 5-41
5.12.2.3
Toxic Substances ............................................................................................ 5-42
No Action Alternative................................................................................................... 5-42
Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 5-42
6.0

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM
PRODUCTIVITY ..........................................................................................................................6-1

7.0

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ...............................7-1

8.0

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..........................................................................................................................8-1
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ....................................................... 8-1
Gateway Regional Business Park .................................................................................. 8-1
Letcher County Airport Project .................................................................................... 8-1
Infrastructure and Utility Projects ............................................................................... 8-2
Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 8-2
Potential Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 8-5
8.1.5.1
Land Use .......................................................................................................... 8-5
8.1.5.2
Topography, Geology, and Soils ...................................................................... 8-5
8.1.5.3
Traffic and Transportation ................................................................................ 8-5
8.1.5.4
Air Quality........................................................................................................ 8-6
8.1.5.5
Noise................................................................................................................. 8-6
8.1.5.6
Infrastructure and Utilities ................................................................................ 8-6
8.1.5.7
Water Resources ............................................................................................... 8-7
8.1.5.8
Biological Resources ........................................................................................ 8-7

9.0

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................................9-1

10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ...............................................................................................................................10-1
11.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST ................................................................................................................................11-1
APPENDIX A AGENCY COORDINATION .......................................................................................................A-1
APPENDIX B EXCAVATION AND GRADING CALCULATIONS ................................................................ B-1
APPENDIX C AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS ..........................................................................................C-1
APPENDIX D ENHANCED UTILITY REPORT................................................................................................D-1
vi

Table of Contents
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky
APPENDIX E-1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS ................................................................. E1-1
APPENDIX E-2 COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS ................................................................................................. E2-1
APPENDIX F TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ......................................................................................................... F-1
APPENDIX G ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................. G-1
APPENDIX H INVESTIGATION OF ROCK RUBBLE MATERIAL, ROXANA SITE ............................... H-1

List of Figures
Figure ES-1. Payne Gap and Roxana Site Locations ........................................................................................ ES-iii
Figure 2-1. Payne Gap and Roxana Site Locations................................................................................................2-4
Figure 2-2. Payne Gap Project Location.................................................................................................................2-6
Figure 2-3. Payne Gap USP and FPC Conceptual Layout ....................................................................................2-7
Figure 2-4. Roxana Project Location ......................................................................................................................2-9
Figure 2-5. Roxana USP and FPC Conceptual Layout .......................................................................................2-10
Figure 4-1. Payne Gap Land Use.............................................................................................................................4-2
Figure 4-2. Payne Gap Existing Utilities ...............................................................................................................4-23
Figure 4-3. Architectural Resources Evaluated in the APE for Alternative 1 ..................................................4-27
Figure 4-4. Payne Gap Wetlands and Streams ....................................................................................................4-30
Figure 5-1. Roxana Land Use ..................................................................................................................................5-2
Figure 5-2. Roxana Existing Utilities ....................................................................................................................5-20
Figure 5-3. Architectural Resources Evaluated in the APE for Alternative 2 ..................................................5-24
Figure 5-4. Roxana Wetlands and Streams ..........................................................................................................5-28

List of Tables
Table ES-1. Summary of Environmental Consequences ...................................................................................ES-vi
Table 1-1. Mid-Atlantic Region USP Inmate Population as of December 3, 2015 ..............................................1-4
Table 2-1. Estimated Site Preparation Quantities for Alternative 1 - Payne Gap ..............................................2-5
Table 2-2. Estimated Site Preparation Quantities for Alternative 2 - Roxana ....................................................2-8
Table 3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................................................................................................3-4
Table 3-2. Sound Levels Estimated by Population Density ...................................................................................3-5
Table 4-1. Study Area Population Trends, 2000–2010 ...........................................................................................4-5
Table 4-2. Study Area Employment, 2013 ..............................................................................................................4-6
Table 4-3. Study Area Percent Unemployment Rates ...........................................................................................4-6
Table 4-4. Study Area Personal and Per Capita Income .......................................................................................4-7
Table 4-5. Study Area Housing Units, 2013 ............................................................................................................4-7
Table 4-6. Study Area Percent Race and Ethnicity, 2013 .....................................................................................4-8
Table 4-7. Study Area Percent Below Poverty Level, 2013 ...................................................................................4-8
Table 4-8. Study Area Percent Under the Age of 18, 2013 ....................................................................................4-8
Table 4-9. Letcher County Schools Enrollment and Capacity for 2014–2015...................................................4-12
Table of Contents
March 2016

vii

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky
Table 4-10. Estimated Peak Hour Trip Generation.............................................................................................4-14
Table 4-11. Construction Emission Estimates for Payne Gap Site .....................................................................4-17
Table 4-12. Estimated Annual Operational Emissions ........................................................................................4-18
Table 4-13. OSHA Permissible Noise Exposures .................................................................................................4-19
Table 4-14. Airborne Construction Related Noise Emissions .............................................................................4-20
Table 4-15. Architectural Resources in the Payne Gap Site APE Evaluated for NRHP
Eligibility ......................................................................................................................................4-28
Table 4-16. Wetland and Streams Delineated at Payne Gap ..............................................................................4-29
Table 4-17. State and Federal Report of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern
Plants, and Animals of Letcher County, Kentucky ..................................................................4-33
Table 5-1. Study Area Population Trends, 2000–2010 ...........................................................................................5-5
Table 5-2. Study Area Employment, 2013 ..............................................................................................................5-6
Table 5-3. Study Area Percent Unemployment Rates ...........................................................................................5-6
Table 5-4. Study Area Personal and Per Capita Income .......................................................................................5-7
Table 5-5. Study Area Housing Units, 2013 ............................................................................................................5-7
Table 5-6. Study Area Percent Race and Ethnicity, 2013 .....................................................................................5-8
Table 5-7. Study Area Percent Below Poverty Level, 2013 ...................................................................................5-8
Table 5-8. Study Area Percent Under the Age of 18, 2013 ....................................................................................5-8
Table 5-9. Letcher County Schools Enrollment and Capacity for 2014–2015...................................................5-11
Table 5-10. Estimated Peak Hour Trip Generation.............................................................................................5-14
Table 5-11. Construction Emission Estimates for Roxana Site ..........................................................................5-15
Table 5-12. Estimated Annual Operational Emissions ........................................................................................5-16
Table 5-13. Airborne Construction Related Noise Emissions .............................................................................5-18
Table 5-14. Architectural Resources in the Roxana Site APE Evaluated for NRHP
Eligibility ......................................................................................................................................5-23
Table 5-15. Wetland and Streams Delineated at Roxana ....................................................................................5-27
Table 5-16. State and Federal Report of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern
Plants, and Animals of Letcher County, Kentucky ..................................................................5-32
Table 5-17. Generic Statewide Ambient Background Concentrations for Arsenic ..........................................5-38
Table 8-1. Estimated GHG Emissions from Construction Activities at Payne Gap Site ....................................8-4
Table 8-2. Estimated GHG Emissions from Construction Activities at Roxana Site .........................................8-4

viii

Table of Contents
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEP

American Electric Power

AMSL

above mean sea level

AMUs

Adjusted Mitigation Unit(s)

APE

Area of Potential Effects

ARH

Appalachian Regional Healthcare

AST(s)

aboveground storage tank(s)

ASTM

American Society for Testing and
Materials

BMPs

Best Management Practices

Bureau

Federal Bureau of Prisons

CAA
CCR(s)
CEQ
CERCLIS

Clean Air Act
Consumer Confidence Report(s)
Council on Environmental Quality
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System

CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CH4

methane

CMOA

Conservation Memorandum of Agreement

CO

carbon monoxide

CO2

HAP(s)

hazardous air pollutant(s)

HUC

Hydrologic Unit Code

ITE

Institute of Transportation Engineers

KAR

Kentucky Administrative Regulations

KDEP

Kentucky Department for Environmental
Protection

KGS

Kentucky Geological Survey

KHC

Kentucky Heritage Council

KRADD

Kentucky River Area Development
District

KY SHWS
KYLMI
KYTC
LOS
LCWSD
MBTA
MOU
MSAT(s)
MSL
NAAQS

Kentucky State Hazardous Waste Sites
Kentucky Labor Market Information
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet
level of service
Letcher County Water and Sewer District
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
Memorandum of Understanding
Mobile Source Air Toxic(s)
mean sea level
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

carbon dioxide

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

CO2e

carbon dioxide equivalent

NHPA

National Historic Preservation Act

CWA

Clean Water Act

N2O

nitrogen oxide

decibels

NO2

nitrogen dioxide

A-weighted decibels

NOx

nitrogen oxides

dB
dBA
EA

Environmental Assessment

NRCS

Natural Resources Conservation Service

EIS

Environmental Impact Statement

NRHP

National Register of Historic Places

EIU

Ecological Integrity Unit

EMTs

emergency medical technicians

EO

Executive Order

ESA

Endangered Species Act

FAA

Federal Aviation Administration

FEMA

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FPC

Federal Prison Camp

FPPA

Farmland Protection Policy Act

GHGs

greenhouse gases

Acronyms and Abbreviations
March 2016

NWI
O3
OSHA

National Wetland Inventory
ozone
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration

PCBs

polychlorinated biphenyls

pCi/L

picocuries per liter

PM2.5

particulate matter with a diameter of
2.5 microns or less

PM10

particulate matter with a diameter less than
10 microns
ix

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky
ppb

parts per billion

ppm

parts per million

RCRA

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RECs

Recognized Environmental Conditions

RSLs

Regional Screening Levels

SHPO
SO2
TCPs
TMDL

State Historic Preservation Officer
sulphur dioxide
Traditional Cultural Properties
Total Maximum Daily Load

TPY

tons per year

TRI

Toxics Release Inventory

TSCA

Toxic Substances Control Act

UCL

Upper Confidence Limit

U.S.

United States

USACE
USC
USDA

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Code
U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEPA

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS
USP
UST(s)
VOC
WWTP
yd3

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Penitentiary
underground storage tank(s)
volatile organic compound
wastewater treatment plant
cubic yards

µg/kg

micrograms per kilogram

µg/m3

micrograms per cubic meter

µS

x

microseconds

Acronyms and Abbreviations
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1.0

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The United States (U.S.) Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) has prepared this
Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed construction and operation of a
federal correctional facility in Letcher County, Kentucky. The Bureau published the Final Environmental
Impact Statement for Proposed United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County,
Kentucky on July 31, 2015. In consideration of comments received following publication of the Final EIS
and to correct inconsistencies in the Final EIS, the Bureau concluded the Final EIS would be withdrawn
and a Revised Final EIS would be issued. A Revised Final EIS would enable the Bureau to provide more
complete discussion of some topics addressed in the Final EIS, and provide more complete responses to
comments received on the Draft EIS than were provided in the FEIS. Also as a result of comments
received following release of the Final EIS, the Bureau concluded that written notice of availability of the
Final EIS had not been directly provided to at least 22 parties who had requested it; therefore, those
parties received less than the intended, full 30-day review period in which to submit comments on the
Final EIS. By publishing this Revised Final EIS and by providing a 30-day review period on the Revised
Final EIS, the public, including any parties who may not have received timely notice of the Final EIS
publication, are being afforded a new 30-day review period within which to submit comments on the
Revised Final EIS so that they can be considered by the Bureau prior to and in connection with a Record
of Decision for the proposed action.
This Revised Final EIS makes no change to the proposed action. As did the withdrawn Final EIS, the
Revised Final EIS evaluates potential environmental effects that may result from the proposed
construction and operation of a United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp at two alternative
sites in Letcher County, Kentucky, as well as the No Action Alternative.
This EIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
as amended, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500–1508), and the U.S. Department of Justice procedures for implementing
NEPA (28 CFR 61).

BACKGROUND
The Bureau was established in 1930 to provide more progressive and humane care for federal inmates, to
professionalize the prison service, and to ensure consistent and centralized administration of federal
prisons. The mission of the Bureau is to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled
environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost efficient, and
appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders
in becoming law-abiding citizens.

SECURITY LEVELS
The Bureau accomplishes its mission through the appropriate use of the following types of communitycorrection, detention, and correctional facilities:
•
•
•

Federally owned and operated
Federally owned and non-federally operated
Non-federally owned and operated

1.0 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
March 2016

1-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Regardless of facility ownership, the Bureau operates correction and detention facilities at various
security levels. Each security level is characterized by the type of housing within the institution, internal
security features, and staff-to-inmate ratio. Different security levels require particular features such as
external patrols, guard towers, security barriers, or detection devices. The five categories of security
levels are described as follows:
•

•
•

•

•

Minimum-Security – Also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs) or satellite work camps. They
are characterized by dormitory housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and are without
fences. They are typically associated with a larger institution or military base where inmates can
help serve labor needs of the institution or base.
Low-Security – Federal Correctional Institutions with double fenced perimeters, primarily
dormitory housing, and strong work and program components.
Medium-Security – Federal Correctional Institutions with strengthened perimeters (e.g., double
fences with electronic detection systems), cell-type housing, a wide variety of work and treatment
programs, and an increased inmate-to-staff ratio to provide greater control.
High-Security – Also known as United States Penitentiary (USP). These facilities have highly
secure perimeters (e.g., walls or double fences with taut wire fencing, non-lethal/lethal fences),
multiple single occupant cell housing, guard towers, close staff supervision, and movement
controls.
Administrative – Institutions that house offenders who require an uncommon level of security
due to their serious records of institutional misconduct, involvement in violent or escape-related
behavior, and/or who have unusual security needs based on the nature of their offense. These
facilities have highly secured perimeters consisting of walled or double fenced enclosures with
guard towers.

The security level classifications of all of the Bureau’s inmates are reviewed at regularly scheduled
intervals during their incarceration. If at the time of the inmate’s classification review the inmate’s
security level is no longer appropriate for placement in the current institution, the inmate would be
submitted for transfer to a lower or higher security level facility. The classification of inmates is
necessary to place each inmate in the most appropriate security level institution that meets their program
needs and also ensures and protects society.

EXISTING FEDERAL PRISON POPULATION
In 1981, the federal inmate population consisted of approximately 23,800 inmates. By 1986 the federal
inmate population had increased to about 38,700, a 63 percent increase. Growth continued at a steady rate
through the 1990s and in 1998 the federal inmate population had grown 280 percent, reaching 108,000
inmates. At the end of Fiscal Year 2015 (September 30, 2015), the Bureau inmate population totaled
205,723; this includes 165,134 inmates being housed in 122 Bureau institutions, 24,262 being housed in
privately-managed secure facilities, and 16,327 being housed in other contract care. Of the 165,134
inmates housed in Bureau institutions, 21,465 were high-security male inmates. The Bureau housed these
21,465 high-security male inmates in 17 USPs located throughout six regions within the U.S.: the MidAtlantic Region; North Central Region; Northeast Region; South Central Region; Southeast Region; and

1-2

1.0 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Western Region. 1 Each region provides facilities for housing inmates at all security levels. At the end of
Fiscal Year 2015, the 17 USPs were rated for a total capacity of 14,621 high-security inmates. Therefore,
the Bureau’s high-security institutions were 47 percent overcrowded and continue to operate at above
rated capacity.
The overall prisoner population is declining. However, of the 8,426 net decrease in the total inmate
population in Fiscal Year 2015, only a small fraction of the net decrease was realized in the Bureau’s
high-security level inmate population (250). The current prison population in high-security male facilities
(USPs) remains at overcrowding levels. As of December 3, 2015, the system-wide overcrowding level for
all USPs in the Bureau of Prisons is 46 percent. The overcrowding level in the USPs in the Mid-Atlantic
Region is currently 48 percent.
To meet the current and projected bedspace needs, the Bureau evaluates the bedspace needs of the regions
using a geographically balanced program. When making decisions on the placement of an individual, the
Bureau considers the origin of the inmate and attempts to place the inmate in an institution that is within
the region of the inmate’s origin. Placing inmates within their region of origin provides greater
opportunity for visitation with family, which aids in the rehabilitation process. However, an inmate’s
region of origin is not the sole factor in determining the inmate’s placement. Other factors that are
considered when making placement decisions include, but are not limited to, the level of security and
supervision the inmate requires, the level of security and staff supervision the institution is able to
provide, the inmate’s program needs, the level of overcrowding at an institution, any security, location or
program recommendation by the sentencing court, any additional security measures to ensure the
protection of victims/witnesses and the public in general, and any other factor(s) that may involve the
inmate’s confinement, the protection of society, and/or the safe and orderly management of a Bureau
facility.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS MID-ATLANTIC REGION
One of the regions identified by the Bureau as having an increasing need for additional high-security
bedspace in order to reduce overcrowding is the Mid-Atlantic Region. As of December 3, 2015,
approximately 5,665 high-security inmates are housed within the Mid-Atlantic Region. The current rated
capacity for these institutions is 3,821. Therefore, the Bureau has determined that due to the overcrowding
in the Mid-Atlantic Region, specifically within the USPs, construction of a new high-security facility and
a FPC for mission support would be warranted in the region.
There are currently 18 correctional facilities housing male inmates in the Bureau’s Mid-Atlantic Region.
Of these, only four are USPs or high-security facilities: USP Hazelton located in Hazelton, West Virginia,
USP Lee located in Jonesville, Virginia, USP Big Sandy located in Inez, Kentucky, and USP McCreary
located in McCreary, Kentucky. Table 1-1 depicts the current populations associated with each of the
USPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region.

Inmates houses at the Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado and the Administrative USP in
Thomson, Illinois were not included in these figures.

1

1.0 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
March 2016

1-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 1-1. Mid-Atlantic Region USP Inmate Population as of December 3, 2015
Hazelton
Lee
Big Sandy
McCreary

USP

Total

Current Inmate Population
1,445
1,329
1,458
1,433
5,665

Rated Capacity
957
960
949
955
3,821

PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the proposed federal correctional facility in Letcher County, Kentucky, is to provide an
additional high-security penitentiary and an associated prison camp to increase capacity for current
inmate populations in the Mid-Atlantic Region. The need for the proposed facility is that the current
inmate populations of the USPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region are exceeding their rated capacity and their
associated FPCs are at or near capacity. The overcrowding level in the USPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region
is currently 48 percent. Current inmates from the four existing USPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region could be
moved from these overcrowded facilities to the proposed Letcher County USP. The Bureau has
determined that there is a need for additional high-security facilities within this region to reduce the
demonstrated overcrowding that compromises the mission of the Bureau. The Bureau’s mission is to
protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based
facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secured, and that provide work and other
self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.

PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action evaluated in this Revised Final EIS is the acquisition of property and the
construction and operation of a federal correctional facility in Letcher County, Kentucky. The Bureau
proposes to acquire approximately 800 acres (324 hectares) to construct a USP (approximately 61,654
square meters [663,638 square feet]) and FPC (approximately 6,063 square meters [65,262 square feet])
in Letcher County. Inmates housed in the USP would be high-security male inmates and those housed in
the FPC would be minimum-security male inmates. The proposed USP and FPC would house
approximately 1,216 total inmates (approximately 960 within the USP and approximately 256 within the
FPC). Operation of the USP and FPC would require approximately 300 full-time staff.
In addition to the USP and FPC, several ancillary facilities necessary for the operation of the USP and
FPC would be constructed. The ancillary facilities would include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Central Utility Plant (1,217 square meters [13,100 square feet])
Outdoor Firing Range (96 square meters [1,033 square feet])
Outside Warehouse (3,279 square meters [35,295 square feet])
Staff Training Building (910 square meters [9,795 square feet])
Garage/Landscape Building (653 square meters [7,028 square feet])
Access Roads and Parking

The outdoor firing range would be used by Bureau staff primarily for annual firearms recertification. The
range would be used approximately once a month for small arms training and maintenance.
A non-lethal/lethal fence and lighting would also be installed. The non-lethal/lethal fence would be placed
around the perimeter of the USP between two parallel, chain link and razor wire fences. The fence would
1-4

1.0 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

be approximately 12 feet high. The site lighting would consist of 100 foot (30 meter) high-mast lighting
poles placed along the security perimeter road around the correctional facility, in the parking lot, and
around the buildings. The lighting would include hooded fixtures with a mix of high pressure sodium and
metal halide lights to provide a minimum of 1.5 footcandles of illumination. The number and mix of light
sources used to illuminate the secure compound are selected for the ability to relight the facility quickly in
the event of a power outage.
The initial step for project development would be property acquisition. Property acquisition would
involve acquisition of both surface and mineral rights from multiple owners, and would be estimated to
take several months to a year or longer. Project construction would begin after property acquisition is
completed, and would take three to four years.
General Design Features of the United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp
The Bureau has standard design layouts for their correctional facilities, which include similar design
characteristics. General design features of a USP include:
•
•
•
•
•

Single road for controlled access to each correctional facility
Parking lot located near the public entrance to each correctional facility for use by both
employees and visitors
One- to four-story structures
Multipurpose activity spaces
Buffer areas around the facility providing visual and physical setbacks from the site boundaries

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
National Environmental Policy Act
In 1969, Congress enacted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires consideration
of environmental issues in federal agency planning and decision-making. Regulations for federal agency
implementation of the act were established by the President’s CEQ. NEPA requires federal agencies to
prepare an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) for any federal
action, except those actions that are determined to be “categorically excluded” from further analysis. An
EIS is prepared for those federal actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human and natural
environments or where the impacts are largely unknown or controversial. The EIS must disclose
significant environmental impacts and inform decision makers and the public of the reasonable
alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human
environment. The intent of this Revised Final EIS is to document the potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action, acquisition of property and construction and operation of a USP and
FPC. The Bureau is the decision-maker with regard to this proposed action. This document, together with
its appendices and other documents incorporated by reference, constitutes the Revised Final EIS pursuant
to NEPA, the CEQ regulations, and the U.S. Department of Justice procedures for implementing NEPA.
The Revised Final EIS identifies and evaluates potential environmental impacts of the proposed action
alternatives and the No Action Alternative to: land use and zoning; topography, geology, and soils;
socioeconomics and environmental justice; community facilities and services (fire, police, and emergency
services, health care facilities, and schools); transportation and traffic; air quality; noise; infrastructure
and utilities; cultural resources; water resources (surface water, wetlands, groundwater, and floodplains);
biological resources (vegetation, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species); and hazardous
1.0 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
March 2016

1-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

materials and waste. Also discussed, as appropriate, is mitigation for the identified environmental
impacts. In addition, this Revised Final EIS identifies which of the proposed action alternatives would
result in the least amount of impacts to the environment.
Related Environmental Documents
In 2008, the Bureau conducted a site reconnaissance study in Letcher County, Kentucky. The site
reconnaissance report identified several resources associated with potential sites that would require
additional studies to determine if the sites were viable for the development of a federal correctional
institution. Based on this 2008 study, a second study was conducted in 2010 to rank these sites and verify
that the issues originally identified in 2008 had not changed. Based on the data collected from both the
2008 and 2010 studies, it was determined that a feasibility study to analyze the resources of concern
would be conducted to further assess the viability of construction at each of the sites.
In 2012, the Bureau completed a feasibility study that evaluated four potential sites for the development
of a USP and FPC in Letcher County, Kentucky (TEC, Inc. 2012). The purpose of the feasibility study
was to conduct additional studies, including wetland identification and delineation, cultural resource
surveys, geotechnical studies, boundary surveys, and a utility assessment, of the proposed sites to
determine if there would be constraints associated with these resources and the development of the sites.
The feasibility study evaluated the benefits, challenges, and potential risks associated with development
of each site. Based on the results of the feasibility study and changes with the offers of sites, it was
determined that two sites, Payne Gap and Roxana, would be carried forward for analysis in the EIS.
Agency Coordination
In addition to NEPA, other laws, regulations, permits and licenses may be applicable to the proposed
action. Specifically, the proposed action may require:
•
•
•
•
•

Informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Service regarding the occurrence
of threatened and endangered species within the sites;
Concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer on cultural resource findings;
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit if wetland impacts occur;
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination permit for non-point source discharge; and
Erosion and sediment control plan for new construction.
Public Involvement

NEPA requires the public be informed and involved throughout the development of an EIS, beginning
with public scoping. The public scoping meeting is an opportunity for the federal agency, in this case the
Bureau, to introduce the project to the public and receive input on the scope of the issues to be addressed
in the EIS. The local public has knowledge of the area where the proposed action may take place, and can
provide insight into local resources, as well as to the concerns of the community. Public involvement in
the NEPA process is required and is an extremely valuable tool in the successful completion of NEPA
documents.
The official scoping period for this project began on July, 26, 2013, when the Bureau published a Notice
of Intent to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register, and ended on August 26, 2013. The notice was also
published in the Lexington Herald-Leader on July 26, 2013, and the Mountain Eagle on July 31, 2013. A
scoping meeting was held on August 13, 2013, to inform the public about the proposed project and to
1-6

1.0 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

explain NEPA and the associated environmental impact analysis. A total of 453 people attended the
public meeting and a total of 320 comments were received during the 30-day scoping period.
Additionally, 169 letters of support were presented at the scoping meeting, as well as two petitions in
support of the project with a combined total of 124 signatures. Of the 320 comments received, 317
comments were in support of the project and 3 were not in support of the project. Issues raised in the
letters that did not support the project included: socioeconomics, previous mining activities,
infrastructure, and alternatives. These resources and areas of concern raised during scoping were analyzed
in the Draft EIS.
The Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2015.
A Notice of Public Meeting for the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on February 10,
2015. The notice provided the date, time, and location of the public meeting to be held on March 12,
2015. A notice of availability of the Draft EIS and public meeting was also published in the Mountain
Eagle on February 11, 2015 and the Lexington Herald-Leader on February 8, 2015. The notice
announced that the Draft EIS would be available for public review and comment between February 13
and March 30, 2015. The notice identified the local libraries where hard copies of the document could be
reviewed, as well as a project website, www.fbopletchercountyeis.com, where an electronic version of the
document could be reviewed. The Bureau also sent out 60 hard copies and 161 CDs containing the Draft
EIS to federal, state, and local elected officials and regulatory agencies (USFWS, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Kentucky State Clearinghouse, etc.), other interested parties (planning commission, fire
departments, police departments, etc.), and individuals who had requested a copy during scoping or at any
other time prior to the release of the Draft EIS.
The public meeting was held on March 12, 2015, between 5:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. at the Letcher County
Central High School. The meeting was conducted in an open house format and Bureau representatives
were in attendance to answer questions and discuss the project with the attendees. Approximately 350
members of the public attended the public meeting. Attendees were able to provide written comments or
give oral comments to a stenographer during the meeting. Attendees were also provided information for
mailing their comments to the Bureau. Comments received during the public comment period included
158 comments received at the public meeting; 31 comments received via mail or email; three petitions in
support of the project with 1,001 signatures; one petition in support of the project at the Roxana site with
155 signatures; and 1,005 letters of support. Of the comments received, 1,157 of the comments (not
including the petitions in support of the project) were in support of the project and 12 comments were in
opposition of the project. Twenty-four of the comments in support of the project favored the Payne Gap
site and 44 of the comments in support of the project favored the Roxana site. All comments on the Draft
EIS, and the Bureau’s responses to those comments, are included in Appendix E-1 of this Revised Final
EIS.
The Notice of Availability of the Final EIS was published in the Federal Register on July 31, 2015,
beginning a 30-day public review period. The notice was also published in the Mountain Eagle on July
22, 2015, and the Lexington Herald-Leader on July 26, 2015. A total of 16 comments and one online
petition signed by 625 individuals in opposition of the project were received during the 30-day review
period, and two comments were received after the 30-day review period. In consideration of comments
received following release of the Final EIS, the Bureau concluded that written notice of publication of the
Final EIS had not been directly provided to at least 22 parties who had requested it; consequently, those
parties received less than the intended, full 30-day review period in which to submit comments on the
1.0 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
March 2016

1-7

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Final EIS. By publishing this Revised Final EIS and by providing a 30-day review period on the Revised
Final EIS, the public, including any parties who may not have received timely notice of the Final EIS
publication, are being afforded a new 30-day review period within which to submit comments on the
Revised Final EIS so that they can be considered by the Bureau prior to and in connection with a Record
of Decision for the proposed action. All comments received on the Final EIS that was withdrawn will
remain part of the Administrative Record for the proposed action, and have been included in this Revised
Final EIS in Appendix E-2.

1-8

1.0 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2.0

ALTERNATIVES

CEQ’s guidelines for implementing the procedural Provisions of the NEPA establish a number of policies
for federal agencies, including “…using the NEPA process to identify and assess reasonable alternatives
to the proposed action that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions on the quality of the
human environment” (40 CFR 1500.2[e]). The guidelines also require an analysis of alternatives based
“on the information and analysis presented in the sections on the Affected Environment (§1502.15) and
the Environmental Consequences (§1502.16).” The guidelines further state that the analysis “should
present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply
defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice.” According to CEQ guidelines the alternatives
analysis is also required to:
•
•
•
•
•

•

“Include the alternative of no action”
“…explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were
eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated”
“Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed
action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits”
“Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency”’
“Identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if one or more exists, in the draft
statement and identify such alternative in the final statement unless another law prohibits the
expression of such a preference”
“Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or
alternatives”

The analysis of alternatives considered in this Revised Final EIS was conducted under these guidelines to
address the following:
•
•
•

No Action Alternative. A decision not to proceed with the proposed action to develop a new
USP and FPC.
Alternative Locations-Nationwide. Locations other than the Letcher County, Kentucky area for
implementation of the proposed action.
Alternative Locations. Within the Geographic Area of Interest Warranting Consideration.
Potential site(s) which meet minimum requirements for accommodating the proposed facility are
located with the geographic area of interest (Kentucky), and have been offered and are available
for Bureau consideration.

A discussion of these alternatives follows. No reasonable alternatives outside the jurisdiction of the
Bureau (the lead agency) have been identified or warrant inclusion in the Revised Final EIS.

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Action Alternative, the Bureau would not acquire property or construct and operate a new
USP or FPC. Existing USPs would remain overcrowded and prevent the Bureau from meeting its mission.
The No Action Alternative would avoid potential impacts associated with the development of a USP and
FPC. The No Action Alternative does not meet the project purpose and need and is therefore, not
considered a viable alternative. The No Action Alternative is discussed in this Revised Final EIS because
it serves as a baseline against which to compare the action alternatives.
2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

2-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS-NATIONWIDE
The locations of new federal correctional facilities are determined by the need for incarceration in various
regions of the country and the resources available to meet that need. To meet these needs the Bureau
routinely identifies and evaluates potential sites that may be appropriate for development of new federal
correctional facilities. Under an ongoing Congressional mandate, consideration is given to surplus
properties while other publicly or privately owned properties offered to the Bureau are also examined for
possible use.
The initial steps in the planning process include the identification and evaluation of potential sites.
Identification of a site that has the potential to house more than one federal correctional facility is a key
factor in the evaluation of sites. Acquisition of property that has the potential for facility expansion
provides the Bureau with the opportunity to expand as the inmate population grows. The Bureau also
responds to initiatives from communities requesting consideration to host new federal correctional
facilities. When approached by a community to host a facility, the Bureau’s first steps are to visit the sites
offered and:
•

•
•
•
•

Identify the interest and support of the community, including the support/opposition of elected
and appointed officials, community leaders, stakeholders, and the general public in having a
federal correctional facility within their community
Identify suitable locations for development of the federal correctional facility based on
infrastructure conditions, environmental resources, land use and zoning, and other related criteria.
Determine the on-site conditions including constructability of the site
Identify potential environmental issues that require consideration under NEPA (National Historic
Preservation Act [NHPA], CWA, Endangered Species Act, etc.)
Determine what further investigations and detailed studies may be warranted to obtain additional
information about the potential sites

After the initial screening process, those sites with favorable conditions are moved forward and evaluated
under another set of criteria, including optimal infrastructure and environmental requirements. The
criteria used to evaluate the sites are established by the Bureau; however, these general criteria can be
supplemented if needed to assess issues or potential issues and make sure they are addressed adequately
in the evaluation of the sites. The general criteria the Bureau uses to screen potential sites for
development include:
•

•

•
•
•

2-2

The site should have sufficient land area (300 to 350 acres minimum [121 to 142 hectares]) to
accommodate the institution and ancillary facilities, provide a buffer zone between the facility
and neighboring properties, and allow for future expansion
Proposed site should be relatively flat (less than 10 percent grade) to provide for minimal site
preparation and proper drainage (this can be affected by geographic regions with mountainous
terrain)
Sites should avoid significant environmental resources (i.e., floodplains, wetlands, threatened and
endangered species, cultural and historic resources, etc.)
Sites should avoid potential incompatible land use conflicts
Emergency services, including police and fire protection, and utilities should be able to provide
services to the prospective sites

2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky
•
•

Site should be served by well-maintained state and county roadways to ensure safe commutes for
employees, service vehicles, and visitors
Support of key elected officials, community leaders, the public and owners of the sites

Sites that the Bureau determines meet these general criteria, and are viable for the development of a
federal correctional facility, are then evaluated in more detail in either an EA or EIS, in compliance with
NEPA.

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
The Bureau has a priority need for additional facilities within the Bureau’s Mid-Atlantic Region. No
reasonable alternatives (land or existing facilities) outside of the jurisdiction of the Bureau were identified
within the Mid-Atlantic Region. In addition, no other lands/facilities in the Mid-Atlantic Region within
the jurisdiction of the Bureau have sufficient space to accommodate the development of the proposed
facilities.
The Bureau was contacted by the Letcher County Planning Commission with an offer of potential sites
for a new USP and FPC in Letcher County, Kentucky. Understanding the needs of the Bureau, the
Letcher County Planning Commission identified potential locations for development and brought these
sites to the attention of the Bureau to determine if the Bureau had an interest in developing a new facility
at one of the locations. The opportunity to provide additional bedspace in Letcher County would meet the
need for additional capacity within the Mid-Atlantic Region, afford the Bureau continued management of
inmates originating from the region, and allow those inmates to remain close to family and friends.
The process to identify potential sites for constructing a USP and FPC in Letcher County began in 2008
with site reconnaissance studies of four sites that had been offered to the Bureau by members of the
community. The purpose of the site reconnaissance studies was to collect preliminary data on the sites
and determine their suitability for development based on site conditions, infrastructure and utilities, and
environmental resources. Based on this initial analysis, it was determined that the four sites evaluated
should be studied in more detail in a feasibility study: Meadow Branch, Payne Gap, Roxana, and
Van/Fields. The feasibility study provided an opportunity for more detailed analysis of each site and
identified constraints that may eliminate a site from further consideration. In 2011, the Bureau completed
a feasibility study that assessed cultural resources, wetlands, geologic conditions, and infrastructure. The
feasibility study also included the production of aerial and topographic mapping, and a boundary survey.
During the initial phases of the feasibility study, the Meadow Branch site was removed from further
consideration due to changes with the offeror, and the site no longer available for consideration by the
Bureau; therefore, no detailed analysis of the site was included in the feasibility study. During the
feasibility study for the remaining three sites, wetlands were delineated, archaeological and historic
structures surveys were completed, and geotechnical studies were conducted. The feasibility study
highlighted potential concerns with development of the sites, as well as estimated costs of infrastructure
improvement and site preparation (excavation and/or fill at each site, and grading activities) on each site.
The feasibility study determined that there were no constraints that would prevent development of the
three sites (TEC, Inc. 2012). During the finalization of the feasibility study there were changes with the
offeror of the Van/Fields site, and this site was removed from further consideration. The remaining two
sites, Payne Gap and Roxana, were identified as alternatives to be carried forward for study in an EIS
(Figure 2-1).

2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

2-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 2-1. Payne Gap and Roxana Site Locations
2-4

2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

ALTERNATIVE 1 – PAYNE GAP
Under Alternative 1, the Bureau would acquire approximately 753 acres (305 hectares) of land known as
the Payne Gap site. The site is located in eastern Letcher County, approximately 7 miles northeast of
Whitesburg, along the Kentucky and Virginia border (Figures 2-1 and 2-2). The Bureau would then
construct and operate a USP and FPC on this site. The site is situated on a gently sloped to steeply sloped
upland land form above the Kentucky River at its confluence with the Laurel Fork. U.S. Route 119 is
located along the north end of the proposed site and would provide site access. Figure 2-3 depicts the
proposed conceptual layout of the facility at the Payne Gap site.
The site is forested with secondary growth forests, and the original topography of portions of the site have
been altered by past surface and deep mining and by associated mining activities such as spoil piles,
roads, and fill piles. Mining permit applications indicate surface and underground mining operations have
occurred within the proposed project site since the 1950s. No active mining is occurring on site.
The Bureau would require a minimum of 300 acres (121 hectares) for construction of the USP and FPC at
this site. To accommodate the USP, FPC, ancillary buildings, and roads as described in Section 1.6,
Proposed Action, the site would require forest clearing and clear mined area, and extensive excavation
and fill material to level and prepare the site for construction. All excavated materials, which would
include the removal of mine spoil, would be used on-site for structural fill or placed as spoil fill. The
excavated soil and rock would be compacted to create a structural fill for the building pads or filled into
the valleys adjacent to the northwest, west, and southeast of the proposed USP location. Table 2-1 depicts
the site preparation quantities.
Table 2-1. Estimated Site Preparation Quantities for Alternative 1 - Payne Gap
Spoil Excavation
Rock Excavation
Structural Fill
Spoil Fill
Clear Mined Area
Clear Forest Area

Note: yd3 = cubic yards.

2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

Activity

Quantity
2,794,660 yd3
8,117,470 yd3
1,716,095 yd3
12,106,917 yd3
7 acres (3 hectares)
211 acres (85 hectares)

2-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 2-2. Payne Gap Project Location
2-6

2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 2-3. Payne Gap USP and FPC Conceptual Layout

2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

2-7

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

ALTERNATIVE 2 – ROXANA
Under Alternative 2, the Bureau would acquire approximately 700 acres (283 hectares) of land known as
the Roxana site. The site is located 7.5 miles west of Whitesburg, Kentucky (Figures 2-1 and 2-4). The
Bureau would then construct and operate a USP and FPC on this site. Figure 2-5 depicts the proposed
conceptual layout of the facility at the Roxana site.
The site is forested except for a large open area near the center of the site created from past surface
mining activities. Mining permit applications indicate the site was surface mined in the late 1980s to early
1990s. No active mining is occurring on site.
The Bureau would require a minimum of 300 acres (121 hectares) for construction of the USP and FPC at
this site. To accommodate the USP, FPC, ancillary buildings, and roads as described in Section 1.6,
Proposed Action, the site would require extensive excavation of spoil material and lesser amounts of
structural fill and spoil fill. Preparation of the site for construction activities would also require clear
mined area and forest clearing. Excavation of the site would include the removal of mine spoil. All
excavated materials would be used on-site for structural fill. The excavated soil and rock would be
compacted to create a structural fill for the building pads or filled into the valleys adjacent to the
northwest and southwest of the proposed USP location. Table 2-2 depicts site preparation quantities.
Table 2-2. Estimated Site Preparation Quantities for Alternative 2 - Roxana
Spoil Excavation
Rock Excavation
Structural Fill
Spoil Fill
Clear Mined Area
Clear Forest Area

Activity

Note: yd3 = cubic yards.

Quantity
9,204,340 yd3
953,246 yd3
9,402,582 yd3
0
81 acres (33 hectares)
110 acres (44 hectares)

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 2 – Roxana is the preferred alternative because it best meets the project needs and, on balance,
would have fewer impacts to the human environment. Threatened and endangered species was a factor in
the identification of the preferred alternative. Studies identified both summer roosting habitat and winter
hibernaculum of federally listed bat species at the Payne Gap site. Identification of the winter bat
hibernaculum would require additional studies to determine the extent of winter hibernaculum and
impacts to the hibernaculum. Additionally, the site would impact a significant amount of summer roosting
habitat versus the amount that would be impacted at the Roxana site. The Payne Gap site would also have
significant impacts to potable water capacity, wastewater treatment, and natural gas infrastructure, while
the Roxana site would have less than significant impacts to infrastructure and utilities. Based upon
comparison of these and other potential environmental impacts applicable to each site, including wetlands
and stream impacts and significantly greater site preparation required for the Payne Gap site, the Roxana
site would have fewer natural resource and other environmental impacts. Therefore, the Roxana site has
been determined to be the preferred alternative.

2-8

2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 2-4. Roxana Project Location
2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

2-9

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 2-5. Roxana USP and FPC Conceptual Layout

2-10

2.0 Alternatives
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

3.0

DEFINITION OF RESOURCE
LAND USE AND ZONING

Land use often refers to human modification of land for residential or economic purposes. Land use
categories typically include agriculture (includes livestock production), forestry, residential, commercial,
industrial, transportation, utilities, mining, recreation, and communication. Land uses are frequently
regulated by management plans, land use plans, comprehensive plans, and local zoning and ordinances.
These plans and regulations assist in identifying where future development can occur so it is compatible
with surrounding land uses and, in protecting specially designated or environmentally sensitive uses.
Land use is interrelated with other resource areas including noise, socioeconomics, biological resources,
and cultural resources. The impact analysis in this Revised Final EIS for land use focuses on those areas
affected by proposed construction and operation of the USP and FPC.

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS
Topography describes the physical surface of the land and includes elevation, slope, and other general
surface features. Geologic factors influence soil stability, bedrock depth, and seismic properties. Soil is
the unconsolidated material above bedrock. Soil is formed from the weathering of bedrock and other
parent materials.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (7 U.S. Code [USC] 4201 et seq.) was introduced to
conserve farmland soil and discourage the conversion of prime farmland soil to a non-agricultural use.
The FPPA considers prime farmland soils as those that have the best combination of physical and
chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and are also available
for these uses. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically
produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed. Soils of statewide importance are those
soils that are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops when treated and
managed according to acceptable farming methods. The FPPA is based on the protection of prime
farmland soils and not on whether the area is in agricultural use.
Topography, geology, and soil resources are analyzed in this Revised Final EIS in terms of drainage,
excavation and fill activities, erosion, and prime farmland. The analysis focuses on the area of soils that
would be disturbed, the potential for erosion of soils from construction areas, and the potential for eroded
soils to become pollutants in downstream surface water during storm events. Best Management Practices
(BMPs) are identified to minimize soil impacts and prevent or control pollutant releases into stormwater.

SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Socioeconomics describes the basic attributes and resources associated with the human environment,
particularly population, employment, income, and housing. The affected area for socioeconomics is
defined as the area where principal effects arising from the construction and operation of the proposed
USP and FPC are likely to occur. The proposed action alternatives have the potential to cause
socioeconomic impacts to the communities around the proposed sites through changes or relocation of
Bureau personnel and construction expenditures.

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

3-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and
Low-Income Populations (Environmental Justice), was issued in 1994. It stipulates that each federal
agency is to make achieving environmental justice a part of its mission by identifying and addressing
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies,
and activities on minority and low-income populations. A minority population is defined as either: 1) the
minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent, or 2) the minority population percentage of
the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the appropriate
community of comparison. Low-income populations are identified where a meaningfully greater portion
of the population is living below the poverty level threshold as compared to the appropriate community of
comparison (CEQ 1997). The environmental justice analysis in this Revised Final EIS addresses the
characteristics of race, ethnicity, and poverty status for populations residing in the immediate area of the
proposed USP and FPC.
EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (Protection of
Children) was issued in 1997 requiring federal agencies to identify and assess environmental health risks
and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. It also requires that each federal agency is to
ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that
result from environmental health risks or safety risks. In this Revised Final EIS, the protection of children
analysis addresses the population under 18 residing in areas potentially affected by the construction and
operation of the proposed USP and FPC.
This socioeconomic analysis focuses on impacts due to population changes and construction
expenditures. Economic impacts are defined to include direct effects, such as changes to employment,
payrolls, and expenditures that affect the flow of dollars into the local economy and secondary effects,
which result from the “ripple effect” of spending and re-spending in response to the direct effects.
Socioeconomic impacts, particularly impacts such as those being evaluated in this Revised Final EIS, are
often mixed: beneficial in terms of gains in jobs, expenditures, tax revenues, etc., and adverse in terms of
growth management issues such as demands for housing and community services.
This analysis in this Revised Final EIS identifies potential environmental justice issues. Impacts to
environmental justice populations are identified where high and adverse human health or environmental
effects may disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations. Impacts to children would
occur if there was an increased disproportionate environmental, health, or safety risk to children.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Community services include police protection, fire protection, health care services and schools. The
potentially affected area includes the cities, towns, and county where the proposed sites are located and
where Bureau employees associated with the proposed action would live and work.
The analysis in this Revised Final EIS focuses on the existing conditions of community services within
the adjacent communities in terms of capacity and availability. The anticipated demand for community
services is described in relation to proposed population increases in inmates, Bureau personnel, and their
families. Lastly, the analysis describes ability of community services to accommodate anticipated changes
in the demand for those services resulting from the proposed action.

3-2

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Transportation and traffic refers to vehicle movement throughout a road and highway network. The study
area for transportation and traffic includes the road and highway networks that surround and support the
Payne Gap and Roxana sites. The American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials classify
roadways as principal arterials, minor arterial streets, collector streets, and local streets. Principal arterials
(i.e., arterial highways and interstates) serve to move traffic regionally and between population and
activity centers with a minimal level of access to adjacent properties. Collector roadways (i.e., minor
arterial and collector streets) serve to move traffic from population and activity centers and funnel them
onto principal arterials with a moderate level of access to adjacent properties. Local roadways provide
access to adjacent properties and move traffic onto collector and arterial roadways.
Average daily traffic and design capacity of the roadway represent two parameters to measure traffic
(Transportation Research Board 2010). Using these two measures of traffic, each roadway segment
receives a corresponding level of service (LOS). The LOS designation is a professional industry standard
used to describe the operating conditions of a roadway segment or intersection. The LOS is defined on a
scale of A to F that describes the range of operating conditions on a particular type of roadway facility.
LOS A through LOS B indicates free flow travel. LOS C indicates stable traffic flow. LOS D indicates
the beginning of traffic congestion. LOS E indicates the nearing of traffic breakdown conditions. LOS F
indicates stop-and-go traffic conditions and represents unacceptable congestion and delay.
Impacts to transportation and traffic are analyzed in this Revised Final EIS by considering the possible
changes to existing traffic conditions and the capacity of area roadways from proposed increases in
commuter and construction traffic. Traffic impact studies were performed and the results, together with
proposed mitigation measures appropriate for each site are included in Appendix F.

AIR QUALITY
Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants determined by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to be of concern related to the health and welfare of the
general public and the environment and are widespread across the U.S. The primary pollutants of concern,
called “criteria pollutants,” include carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2),
ozone (O3), suspended particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), fine
particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead. Under the Clean Air Act
(CAA), the USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for these
pollutants (40 CFR 50). The NAAQS represent the maximum levels of background pollution that are
considered acceptable, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. Short-term
standards (1-, 3-, 8-and 24-hour periods) are established for pollutants contributing to acute health effects,
while long-term standards (quarterly and annual averages) are established for pollutants contributing to
chronic health effects. The Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (KDEP) has adopted the
NAAQS, which are presented in Table 3-1.

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

3-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 3-1. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant
CO
Lead
NO2
PM10
PM2.5
O3
SO2

Averaging Time
8-hr
1-hr
Rolling 3-Month
Average
Annual
(arithmetic average)
1-hr
24-hr
Annual
(arithmetic average)
24-hr
8-hr
1-hour
3-hour

Primary
Standard
9 ppm
35 ppm

Secondary Standard
None

0.15 µg/m3

Same as Primary

53 ppb

Same as Primary

100 ppb
150 µg/m3

None
Same as Primary

12.0 µg/m3

15.0 µg/m3

35 µg/m
0.075 ppm
75 ppb
-

Same as Primary
Same as Primary
0.5 ppm

3

Notes: ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter.
Source: USEPA 2011.

In addition to the ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants, national standards exist for
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) which are regulated under Section 112(b) of the 1990 CAA
Amendments. The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants regulate HAP emissions
from stationary sources. HAPs emitted from mobile sources are called Mobile Source Air Toxics
(MSATs); these are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment that are known
or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health and environmental effects. In 2001, USEPA issued its
first MSAT Rule, which identified 21 compounds as being HAPs that required regulation. A subset of six
of these MSAT compounds were identified as having the greatest influence on health and include
benzene; 1,3-butadiene; formaldehyde; acrolein; acetaldehyde; and diesel particulate matter. In February
2007, USEPA issued a second MSAT Rule, which generally supported the findings in the first rule and
provided additional recommendations of compounds having the greatest impact on health. The rule also
identified several engine emission certification standards that must be implemented.
Unlike the criteria pollutants, there are no NAAQS for HAPs. The primary control methodologies
instituted by federal regulation for MSATs involve technological improvements for reducing their content
in fuel and altering engine operating characteristics to reduce the volume of pollutants generated during
combustion. MSATs would be the primary HAPs emitted by mobile sources during construction and
operation of the proposed action alternatives. The equipment used during construction would likely vary
in age and have a range of pollution reduction effectiveness. Construction equipment, however, would
be operated intermittently over a large area and would produce negligible ambient HAPs in a
localized area. Therefore, MSAT emissions are not considered further in this analysis.
A region’s air quality is influenced by many factors including the type and amount of pollutants emitted
into the atmosphere, the size and topography of the air basin, and the prevailing meteorological
conditions. Pollutant emissions typically refer to the amount of pollutants or pollutant precursors
introduced into the atmosphere by a source or group of sources. Pollutant emissions contribute to the
ambient air concentrations of criteria pollutants, either by directly affecting the pollutant concentrations
measured in the ambient air or by interacting in the atmosphere to form criteria pollutants. Primary
pollutants, such as CO, SO2, lead, and some particulates, are emitted directly into the atmosphere from
emission sources. Secondary pollutants, such as O3, NO2, and some particulates are formed through
3-4

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

atmospheric chemical reactions that are influenced by meteorology, ultraviolet light, and other
atmospheric processes.

NOISE
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air
or water, and are sensed by the human ear. The perception and evaluation of sound involves three basic
physical characteristics:
•
•
•

Intensity – the acoustic energy, which is expressed in terms of sound pressure, in decibels (dB).
Frequency – the number of cycles per second the air vibrates, in Hertz.
Duration – the length of time the sound can be detected.

Noise is defined as unwanted or annoying sound that interferes with or disrupts normal human activities.
Although continuous and extended exposure to high noise levels (e.g., through occupational exposure)
can cause hearing loss, the principal human response to noise is annoyance. The response of different
individuals to similar noise events is diverse and is influenced by the type of noise, perceived importance
of the noise, its appropriateness in the setting, time of day, type of activity during which the noise occurs,
and sensitivity of the individual.
Levels of noise are measured in units called dB. However, a number of factors affect how the human ear
perceives sound: the actual level of noise, frequency, period of exposure, and fluctuations in noise levels
during exposure. The human ear cannot equally perceive all pitches or frequencies and noise
measurements are therefore adjusted or weighted to compensate for the human lack of sensitivity to lowand high-pitched sounds. This adjusted unit is known as the A-weighted decibel, or dBA. The A-weighted
metric, de-emphasizes very low and very high pitched sound and is most often applied to noise generated
by motor vehicle traffic, small boats, and aircraft. Background, or ambient, noise levels are all sounds
present in an environment and are dependent upon land use. Very rural areas with little human activity
would be expected to have the lowest levels of background noise, typically on the order of 15 to 20 dBA
(USEPA 1971). Noise increases with increased population, as demonstrated in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Sound Levels Estimated by Population Density
Description
Rural (undeveloped)
Quiet suburban
Normal suburban
Urban
Noisy urban
Very noisy urban
Source: USEPA 1982.

Population Density
(people per square mile)
20
60
600
2,000
6,000
20,000

Sound Level (dB)
35
45
50
55
60
65

INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
Infrastructure refers to the system of public works, such as utilities, that provides the underlying
framework for a community. Infrastructure components and utilities discussed in this Revised Final EIS
include the water supply system, wastewater system, stormwater drainage system, electrical supply
facilities, natural gas system, and solid waste management facilities. Transportation infrastructure,
including roadway and street systems, the movement of vehicles, and mass transit, are discussed in
Section 3.5, Transportation and Traffic.
3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

3-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Because infrastructure and utilities systems are directly related to activities within the communities from
which they draw their services, the potentially affected area includes the county where they occur. The
assessment of impacts is based on comparing existing use and conditions to anticipated changes in
capacity associated with the utilities. The analysis compares current use with anticipated future demands
to determine potential impacts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources are defined as prehistoric or historic sites, buildings, structures, objects, archaeological
sites, districts, or other physical evidence of human activity that are considered important to a culture or
community for scientific, traditional, or religious reasons. Cultural resources include prehistoric and
historic archaeological resources, architectural resources, and traditional cultural properties (TCPs).
•
•
•

Archaeological resources – places where people changed the ground surface or left artifacts or
other physical remains (e.g., arrowheads or bottles).
Architectural resources – standing buildings, dams, canals, bridges, and other structures.
Traditional cultural properties – resources associated with the cultural practices and beliefs of a
living community that link that community to its past and help maintain its cultural identity.
TCPs may include archaeological resources, locations of historic events, sacred areas, sources of
raw materials for making tools, sacred objects, or traditional hunting and gathering areas.

Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and as implemented by 36 CFR 800, requires federal
agencies to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties before undertaking a project that
uses federal funds or is located on federal lands. A historic property is defined as any cultural resource
that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The
NRHP, administered by the National Park Service, is the official inventory of cultural resources that are
significant in American history, prehistory, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The
NRHP also includes National Historic Landmarks. In consideration of 36 CFR 800, federal agencies are
required to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Indian Tribes, representatives of
local governments, and the public in a manner appropriate to the agency planning process for the planned
action (undertaking) and to the nature of the undertaking and its potential to cause effects on historic
properties. The methodology for identifying, evaluating, and mitigating impacts to cultural resources has
been established through federal laws and regulations including the NHPA, the Archaeological Resource
Protection Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act.
The affected environment for cultural and traditional resources is also referred to as the area of potential
effects (APE). The APE must be defined in order to assess the effects of a proposed action on a historic
property. An APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or
indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist (36 CFR
800.16[d]).
The analysis in this Revised Final EIS applies the criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5) to evaluate the
effects of the proposed action on any historic properties located in the APE of each action alternative. A
project affects a historic property when it alters the property’s characteristics (including relevant features
of its environment or use) that qualify it as significant according to National Register criteria. Adverse
effects may include the following: physical destruction, damage, or alteration of all or part of the
resource; alteration of the character of the surrounding environment that contributes to the resource’s
3-6

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

qualifications for the NRHP; introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of
character with the resource or alter its setting; and neglect of the resource resulting in its deterioration or
destruction. Impacts to traditional Native American tribal properties can be determined only through
consultation with the affected Tribes. However, ground disturbance to prehistoric archaeological sites and
graves has often been cited as an adverse impact.
Analysis of potential impacts to historic properties considers both direct and indirect impacts. Direct
impacts may be the result of physically altering, damaging, or destroying all or part of a historic property,
or neglecting the property to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed. Indirect impacts are those that
may occur as a result of the completed project by altering characteristics of the surrounding environment
through the introduction of visual or audible elements that are out of character for the period the property
represents. An example of an indirect effect is increased vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the vicinity of
the property.

WATER RESOURCES
Water resources include both surface and subsurface water. For the purposes of this Revised Final EIS,
water resources include the following topics: surface water, wetlands, groundwater, and floodplains.
Surface Water
Wetlands, lakes, ponds, impoundments, rivers, and streams compose surface water resources that are
important for economic, ecological, recreational, and human health reasons.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), streams are drainage features that may contain
perennial streams (permanent flows), intermittent streams (flows during much of the year but drying
seasonally), or ephemeral streams (flows only after storm events). Ponds are open water bodies (USACE
1987).
Waters of the U.S. are defined as (1) traditional navigable waters, (2) wetlands adjacent to navigable
waters, (3) non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where
the tributaries typically flow perennially or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically
3 months), and (4) wetlands that directly abut such tributaries under Section 404 of the CWA, as
amended, and are regulated by the USEPA and the USACE.
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended (33 USC § 403) regulates structures or
work that would affect navigable waters of the U.S. Structures include any pier, wharf, bulkhead, etc.
Work includes dredging, filling, excavation, or other modifications to navigable waters of the U.S. The
USACE issues permits for work or structures in navigable waters of the U.S.
Anyone proposing to conduct a project that requires a federal permit or involves dredge or fill activities
that may result in a discharge to surface waters and/or waters of the U.S. is required to obtain a CWA
Section 401 Water Quality Certification, verifying that the project activities will comply with water
quality standards.
Water quality refers to the suitability of water for a particular use based on selected physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics. Potential uses considered include potable water, irrigation, and water able
to support life. For the purposes of this Revised Final EIS, water quality is considered with the statutory
requirements regarding water quality conditions.

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

3-7

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

The CWA of 1972, as amended (33 USC §§ 1251 et seq.), is the primary federal law that protects the
nation’s waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal areas. The primary objective of the CWA is to restore
and maintain the integrity of the nation’s waters. The CWA prohibits all unpermitted discharge of any
pollutant into any jurisdictional waters of the U.S. The USEPA is responsible for administering the water
quality requirements of the CWA. To this end, the USEPA developed pollutant-specific water quality
standards (referred to as total maximum daily load [TMDL]) to identify waters for which quality is
sufficiently poor and for which effluent limits would be insufficient to meet water quality standards
(KDEP 2013).
Water quality is regulated under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the CWA. The
CWA prohibits spills, leaks, or other discharges of oil or hazardous substances into the waters of the U.S.
in quantities that may be harmful. Direct discharges of effluents are regulated under the CWA through
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program administered by the USEPA or under
state National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System programs approved by the USEPA. The CWA also
requires each state to establish water quality standards for its surface waters derived from the amount of
pollutants that can be assimilated by a body of water without deterioration of a designated use. Waters not
meeting the water quality standards may require the establishment of a TMDL for the waterbody.
Impaired waters requiring a TMDL are called 303(d) listed waters (KDEP 2013).
Wetlands
According to USACE regulations, wetlands are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands
generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands are currently regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA as a subset of all “waters
of the U.S.” The term “waters of the U.S.” has a broad meaning under the CWA and incorporates
deepwater aquatic habitats and special aquatic habitats, including wetlands. Jurisdictional waters of the
U.S. regulated under the CWA include coastal and inland waters, lakes, rivers, ponds, streams,
intermittent streams, and “other” waters that, if degraded or destroyed, could affect interstate commerce.
The full regulatory definition of waters of the U.S. is provided in the CWA.
EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, directs federal agencies to take action to minimize the destruction,
loss, or degradation of wetlands on their property and mandates review of proposed actions on wetlands
through procedures established by NEPA. It requires that federal agencies establish and implement
procedures to minimize development in wetlands. Wetlands provide many functions and values such as
flood flow alteration, groundwater recharge/discharge, and fish and wildlife habitat.
The CWA Section 404 requires an USACE-issued permit for the dredging and/or filling of wetlands or
other waters of the U.S.
Groundwater
Groundwater is water that flows or seeps downward and saturates soil or rock, supplying springs and
wells. Groundwater is used for water consumption, agricultural irrigation, and industrial applications.
The principal federal regulation concerning the protection of groundwater is the Safe Drinking Water Act
of 1974 (42 USC §§ 300 et seq.; amended in 1986 and 1996). This act was set forth to protect the nation’s
3-8

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

public water supplies, including groundwater in areas where it is the main potable water source. The
USEPA and the KDEP Division of Water enforce Safe Drinking Water Act standards and related
legislation to protect public health.
Floodplains
EO 11988, Floodplain Management, defines floodplains as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining
inland waters, including at a minimum, that area subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in
any given year. The area subject to a 1 percent chance of flooding is referred to as the 100-year
floodplain. Floodplain delineation maps are produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and provide a basis for comparing the locale of the proposed action to the floodplains.
EO 11988 directs federal agencies to avoid construction in Revised Final floodplains and establishes a
process for analysis and public notice if development is unavoidable. In this Revised Final EIS, the
analysis of floodplains considers if any new construction is proposed within a floodplain or may impede
the functions of floodplains in conveying floodwaters.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Biological resources include living, native, or naturalized plant and animal species and the habitats where
they occur. Plant associations are referred to as vegetation and animal species are referred to as wildlife.
Habitat can be defined as the resources and conditions present in an area that supports the existence of a
plant or animal (Hall et al. 1997). Although the existence and preservation of biological resources are
intrinsically valuable, these resources also provide aesthetic, recreational, and socioeconomic values to
society.
This analysis focuses on species or vegetation types that are important to the function of the ecosystem, of
special societal importance, or are protected under federal or state law or statute. For purposes of this
Revised Final EIS, these resources are divided into three major categories: vegetation, wildlife, and
threatened and endangered species.
Vegetation includes terrestrial plant communities. The analysis focuses on vegetation types that are
important to the function of the ecosystem or are protected under federal or state law.
Wildlife includes all vertebrate animals (i.e., mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and fish) and
sometimes invertebrate species or species groups such as mollusks or insects. Virtually all birds are
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The MBTA was designed to protect migratory
birds (including their eggs, nests, and feathers) and their habitats. An activity has a significant adverse
effect if, over a reasonable period of time, it diminishes the capacity of a population of a migratory bird
species to maintain genetic diversity, to reproduce, and to function effectively in its native ecosystem.
Threatened and endangered species include plant and animal species that are listed or proposed for listing
by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The federal ESA provides for the conservation
of threatened and endangered species of plants and animals and the habitats where they are found. ESA
candidate species are plant or animal species for which the USFWS has sufficient information on file
regarding biological vulnerability and threats to support a proposal that would list them as endangered or
threatened under the ESA, based on the most recent candidate review. In addition, designated and
proposed critical habitat for ESA-listed species are also included in this Revised Final EIS, as appropriate.
Critical habitat is a specific geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a
3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

3-9

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. This Revised
Final EIS also addresses species that are listed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky as threatened or
endangered.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE
The analysis of hazardous materials, hazardous waste, toxic substances, and contaminated sites focuses on
the potential for these substances to be introduced into the environment from maintenance or during
construction activities. Potentially affected areas consist of construction and operational maintenance
areas. Factors considered in the analysis include the potential for increased human health risk or
environmental exposure, as well as changes in the quantity and types of hazardous substances transported,
stored, used, and disposed. The methodology for contaminated sites compares the proximity of proposed
facility development to contaminated sites and considers the operational uses of the facilities to determine
potential impacts to or from the sites.
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials are chemical substances that pose a substantial hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, handled, used, packaged, stored, transported, or disposed.
Hazardous materials are identified and regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC 9601 et seq.); the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 USC
651 et seq.); and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (42 USC 11001 et seq.).
Hazardous materials commonly used at Bureau facilities include petroleum and oil.
Hazardous Waste
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (40 CFR 240–280) and the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (40 CFR 260) define hazardous waste as a solid waste, or combination of wastes
that due to its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may cause or
significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating
reversible illness, or may pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated, stored, disposed of, or otherwise managed. A solid waste is a
hazardous waste if it is not excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261.4(b) and if
it exhibits identified characteristics of hazardous waste or meets other specified criteria [see 40 CFR
261.3(a)].
Toxic Substances
The Toxic Substance Control Act addresses those chemical substances and mixtures that may present
unreasonable risk of personal injury or health of the environment from their manufacturing, processing,
distribution, use, or disposal. The Toxic Substance Control Act Chemical Substances Inventory lists
information on more than 62,000 chemicals and substances, such as asbestos, lead-based paint, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This section defines cumulative impacts and describes the approach taken in the analysis of cumulative
impacts. Chapter 8, Cumulative Impacts, contains descriptions of other actions relevant to cumulative
impacts, an analysis of the incremental interaction the proposed action may have with other actions, and
an evaluation of the cumulative impacts potentially resulting from these interactions.
3-10

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

The approach taken in the analysis of cumulative impacts follows the objectives of NEPA, CEQ
regulations, and CEQ guidance. Cumulative impacts are defined in 40 CFR 1508.7 as:
“the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when
added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(Federal or Non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions.”
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place
over a period of time. A cumulative impact results from the additive effect of all projects in the same
geographical area. Generally, an impact can be considered cumulative if: a) effects of several actions
occur in the same locale, b) effects on a particular resource are the same in nature, and c) effects are longterm in nature. The common factor key to cumulative assessment is identifying any potential temporally
and/or spatially overlapping or successive effects that may significantly affect resources in the analysis
areas.

ASSESSING SIGNIFICANCE
Chapters 4 and 5 present the affected environment and analysis of the potential direct and indirect effects
of each alternative for each resource area described in this chapter. Chapter 8 presents the analysis of the
potential cumulative effects of each alternative for each resource area. The level of significance is
assessed according to NEPA implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27, which requires considerations
of both context and intensity.

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

3-11

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

3-12

3.0 Definition of Resource
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

4.0

ALTERNATIVE 1 – PAYNE GAP
LAND USE AND ZONING

Potential impacts to land use are assessed by comparing the existing land uses with the changes that
would occur from implementation of the proposed action, including induced effects. Impacts to land use
are evaluated for significance by determining the degree to which proposed development and uses conflict
with existing land use and local plans and policies. Under the proposed action, potential short-term and
long-term impacts to land use would occur from construction and operation of the USP and FPC.
Growth induced impacts to land use could result from spending wages and salaries by direct and indirect
employees on items such as food, housing, transportation, and medical services. This spending creates
induced employment in nearly all sectors of the economy; especially service sectors (see Section 4.3,
Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice).
Affected Environment
Land use associated with the proposed location of Alternative 1 primarily consists of forested areas.
Portions of the Payne Gap site were previously deep mined; however, mining activities no longer occur at
the site. Land use surrounding the site is also primarily forested, with small single-family residences
adjacent to the site. Coal mining once occurred in the area, but currently there are only three active coal
mining operations located between 1 and 5 miles from the Payne Gap site (Kentucky Mine Mapping
Information System 2008). There are no zoning ordinances or land use classifications identified for this
area (DePriest 2013). Figure 4-1 depicts existing land use associated with Alternative 1.
Environmental Consequences
4.1.2.1

Construction

Construction of a USP and FPC would result in changes to land use on the 753-acre (305-hectare) Payne
Gap site. Approximately 218 acres (88 hectares) of the Payne Gap site would be converted from forested
and former mining land uses to a government/institutional land use. However, a buffer area would remain
around the USP and FPC to separate the federal correctional facility from the adjacent properties, and
would be compatible with the adjacent land uses. Due to the lack of zoning ordinances and land use
classifications, construction of the proposed USP and FPC would not result in incompatible land uses
from a regulatory perspective.
4.1.2.2

Operations

There would be no impacts to adjacent land uses from operation of the USP and FPC, as the federal
correctional facility would be separated from adjacent properties by a buffer area. The buffer area would
be compatible with adjacent land uses.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USP and FPC would not be constructed at the Payne Gap site and
no potential land use compatibility issues with adjacent land uses would occur.

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 4-1. Payne Gap Land Use
4-2

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Mitigation
Federal agencies are not subject to local/regional zoning or land use development regulations. However,
the Bureau would take the following measures to help minimize potential adverse impacts to surrounding
land uses:
•
•

provide an open space and vegetative buffer between the USP and FPC to maintain visual
compatibility with surrounding properties
design and locate the facilities to reduce the visual presence of the facility from neighboring
properties

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS
Affected Environment
The topography on the Payne Gap site is typified by the mountains valleys complex associated with
western Appalachian Mountains. The topography at Payne Gap has been significantly affected by strip
mining activities, which historically occurred on site. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
7.5-minute Jenkins West topographic quadrangle map, elevations on site range from a low of 1,385 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) in the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the North Fork of the
Kentucky River to a high of 2,965 feet AMSL on Pine Mountain in the southern portion of the site
(University of Kentucky 2013). The majority of slopes on site are very steep, well over 15 percent.
The Payne Gap site is underlain by the Breathitt Group, which is composed of the Pikeville Formation
and the Hyden Formation. The geology underlying the Payne Gap site is primarily Pikeville Formation
(Kentucky Geological Survey [KGS] 2013).
The soils on the Payne Gap site are varied as a result of topography and mining disturbance, but none of
the soils are listed as hydric by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The three most
common soils at the Payne Gap site are composed of the Cloverlick-Kimper-Highsplint complex (30 to
65 percent slopes), the Dekalb-Gilpin-Raye complex (25 to 65 percent slopes), and the Kaymine,
Fairpoint, and Fiveblock soil series (2 to 70 percent slopes). To a lesser degree, the following soils are on
the site: Caneyville-Renox-Bledsoe complex (50 to 80 percent slopes), Shelocta-Highsplint complex (30
to 65 percent slopes), and Urban land Udorthents complex (0 to 15 percent slopes) (NRCS 2013). These
soils have not been designated by NRCS as prime farmland soils.
Environmental Consequences
Implementation of the proposed action under Alternative 1 would result in significant impacts to
topography, geology, and soils.
4.2.2.1

Construction

Development of the site would require significant excavation and fill activities to create a level pad for
construction of the facilities and access roads. A 2:1 fill slope and a 1:1 cut slope were used in the
estimate of fill and excavation quantities adjacent to the building pads and roads to transition to the
original topography at the Payne Gap site. More detail on the earthwork calculations can be found in
Appendix B, Excavation and Grading Calculations. As identified in Table 2-1, Estimated Site
Preparation Quantities for Alternative 1 - Payne Gap, excavation activities (cut) would include 2,794,660
cubic yards (2,136,671 cubic meters) of soil material and 8,117,470 cubic yards (6,206,251 cubic meters)
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

of rock. The excavated soil and rock would be filled into the valleys as spoil or compacted to create a
structural fill for the building pads. The amount of structural fill was estimated to be 1,716,095 cubic
yards (1,312,048 cubic meters) and the amount of spoil fill would be 12,106,917 cubic yards (9,256,402
cubic meters). All excavated materials would be used on-site for structural fill or placed as spoil fill. The
maximum cut (excavation) at Payne Gap would be approximately 60 meters and the maximum fill would
be approximately 80 meters. Removal of bedrock would require blasting activities. Impacts resulting from
the cut and fill activities would include loss of productive soil, erosion, and destabilization of slopes. As a
result of the excavation and fill activities, the topography of the site would change at the maximum cut
from 555 meters to 495 meters (mean sea level [MSL]) in the main building area and at the maximum fill
from 470 meters to 550 meters MSL in the prison camp area.
The project area does not contain soils classified as prime farmland soils, which are protected under the
FPPA; therefore, prime farmland soils would not be impacted and no coordination with NRCS would be
required.
4.2.2.2

Operations

No further impacts to topography, geology or soils are anticipated from the operation of the USP and
FPC.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USP and FPC would not be constructed. Therefore, significant
excavation, fill, and grading activities would not occur. As a result, there would be no impacts to
topography, geology, or soils.
Mitigation
The Bureau would prepare a soil erosion and sediment control plan and submit it to the Kentucky
Division of Water for approval prior to construction. The erosion and sediment control plan would outline
the measures and BMPs to be used for controlling on-site erosion and sedimentation during construction.
BMPs could include placement of silt fencing adjacent to surface waters and wetlands to prevent the
introduction of sediment; the use of hay bales to minimize the spread of sediment off the construction
site; stabilization of steep slopes; use of tree clearing plans; and stormwater control plans to manage
stormwater runoff and keep it on-site during construction. Additionally, construction of the USP, FPC,
and ancillary facilities could be phased to occur at different times, resulting in the minimization of
disturbed soil by clearing only the area necessary for the current phase of construction. Re-vegetation of
disturbed areas following the completion of construction would also occur to minimize the erosion of
exposed soil.

SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
This socioeconomic analysis focuses on impacts due to construction and operation of the proposed action.
The assessment examines how the alternatives would affect population, employment, income, and
housing characteristics in the study area. Economic impacts are defined to include direct effects, such as
changes to employment and expenditures that affect the flow of dollars into the local economy, and
indirect effects, which result from the “ripple effect” of spending and re-spending in response to the direct
effects.

4-4

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Socioeconomic impacts, particularly impacts such as those being evaluated in this Revised Final EIS, are
often mixed: beneficial in terms of gains in jobs, expenditures, tax revenues, etc., and potentially adverse
in terms of growth management issues such as demands for housing and community services.
This analysis also identifies potential environmental justice issues. Impacts to environmental justice
populations are identified where high and adverse human health or environmental effects may
disproportionately affect minority or low-income populations. Impacts to children would occur if there
was an increased disproportionate environmental health or safety risk to children.
Affected Environment
4.3.1.1

Population

The 2013 population of Letcher County was 24,025. Letcher County’s population decreased by
approximately 3 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Table 4-1). The City of Whitesburg grew by
approximately 34 percent from 2000 to 2010 and the City of Jenkins population decreased by 3 percent
during the same time period. The decrease in population is likely the result of people who leave the area
for better education and employment opportunities (Kentucky River Area Development District
[KRADD] 2013). This trend is anticipated to continue within the county with the population decreasing
by an additional 7 percent by the year 2020.
Table 4-1. Study Area Population Trends, 2000–2010
Geographic Area

2000

2010

Percent
Change
2000–2010

Whitesburg, Kentucky

1,598

2,139

33.85

---

---

Jenkins, Kentucky

2,273

2,203

-3.08

---

---

Letcher County, Kentucky

25,275

24,519

-2.99

22,655

-6.88

4,041,769

4,339,357

7.36

4,699,880

8.3

Kentucky

2020 Projected
Population*

Projected Percent
Change 2010–2020

Note: *2020 Projections only available for county and state.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, U.S. Census Bureau 2010, Proximity One 2014.

4.3.1.2

Employment and Income

Letcher County’s 2013 employed civilian labor force was 7,103, out of a total civilian labor force of
8,201. Employment by industry in Letcher County is depicted in Table 4-2. The industries that employ
the greatest number of people in Letcher County include educational services, and health care and social
assistance (33.4 percent); agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining (13.0 percent); and retail
trade (12.7 percent). In Kentucky, the largest industry employers are educational services, and health care
and social assistance (24.5 percent); manufacturing (13.7 percent); and retail trade (11.8 percent)
(U.S. Census Bureau 2014a).
Letcher County is part of the largest coal producing area in eastern Kentucky. While study area jobs in the
coal mining industry have been declining, positions in the health care, retail, and the secondary wood
industries have increased. However, these jobs typically pay less than coal mining jobs. The study area is
part of a region characterized by high unemployment and poverty rates (KRADD 2013).

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 4-2. Study Area Employment, 2013
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting,
and mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and warehousing, and
utilities
Information
Finance and insurance, and real estate and
rental/leasing
Professional, scientific, management, and
administrative and waste management
services
Educational services, health care and
social assistance
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation, and food services
Other services, except public
administration
Public administration
Total

Letcher County, Kentucky
Number
Percent
Employed
Employed

Kentucky
Number
Percent
Employed
Employed

922

13.0

52,348

2.8

442
213
209
904

6.2
3.0
2.9
12.7

111,646
255,938
49,171
219,721

6.0
13.7
2.6
11.8

360

5.1

112,005

6.0

98

1.4

29,217

1.6

199

2.8

102,380

5.5

413

5.8

144,589

7.8

2,369

33.4

456,293

24.5

468

6.6

159,679

8.6

252

3.5

87,228

4.7

254
7,103

3.6

85,390
1,865,605

4.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014a.

While unemployment rates in Kentucky have decreased from a peak of 10.3 percent in 2009 to 6.5
percent in 2014, the unemployment rate in Letcher County increased dramatically from 10.6 percent in
2009 to 17.3 percent in 2013 (Table 4-3). The preliminary 2014 unemployment rate for Letcher County
has decreased to 11.5 percent. The comparable rate for the U.S. was 6.3 percent (Kentucky Labor Market
Information [KYLMI] 2014).
Unemployment rates in the study area are higher than the comparable rates for the state and the nation.
Along with the “displaced worker,” the study area has a higher percentage of “discouraged” workers who
no longer actively seek employment and are, therefore, not included in the official unemployment
statistics. Therefore, the official unemployment rate in the study area is deceptively lower than actual
unemployment (KRADD 2013).
Table 4-3. Study Area Percent Unemployment Rates

Jurisdiction
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

2007
7.7
5.6

2008
7.1
6.6

2009
10.6
10.3

2010
11.4
10.2

Notes: Unemployment rates are not seasonally adjusted. aAugust 2014, preliminary.
Source: KYLMI 2014.

2011
10.3
9.5

2012
13.8
8.3

2013
17.3
8.3

2014a
11.5
6.5

Total personal income includes net earnings by place of residence; dividends, interest, and rent received;
and benefits paid by federal, state, and local governments and businesses. A larger portion of personal
income in Letcher County comes from government and business benefits than for Kentucky and the U.S
(U.S. Department of Commerce 2014).
4-6

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Total personal income in Letcher County decreased by almost 2 percent from 2010 to 2012, while over
the same period, personal income increased by approximately 10 percent in Kentucky (Table 4-4).
Between 2010 and 2012, per capita income increased in Letcher County by less than 1 percent while per
capita income in Kentucky increased by 8 percent. The national per capita income was $43,735
(U.S. Department of Commerce 2014).
Table 4-4. Study Area Personal and Per Capita Income
Jurisdiction
Letcher County,
Kentucky
Kentucky

2010 Personal
Income (000)a

2012 Personal
Income (000)a

Percent
Change
2010–2012

2010 Per
Capita
Income

2012 Per
Capita
Income

Percent
Change
2010–2012

$686,680

$674,369

-1.8

$27,948

$28,155

0.7

$143,210,961

$157,043,042

9.7

$32,947

$35,643

8.2

Notes: Not adjusted for inflation.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2014.

4.3.1.3

Housing

There were 11,519 housing units in Letcher County in 2013, with a total vacancy rate of approximately
19 percent (Table 4-5). The vacancy rate for owner-occupied units was 0.3 percent and the vacancy rate
for rental units was 1.9 percent. The comparable vacancy rates in Kentucky were higher, at 12.4 percent,
2.1 percent, and 6.7 percent respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2014b).
Table 4-5. Study Area Housing Units, 2013
Geographic Area
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014b.

4.3.1.4

Vacant
Housing Units Housing Units
11,519
2,155
1,933,019
239,620

Percent
Vacant
18.7
12.4

Homeowner
Vacancy Rate
0.3
2.1

Rental
Vacancy Rate
1.9
6.7

Environmental Justice

For the purpose of this evaluation, minority refers to people who identified themselves in the census as
Black or African American, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaskan Native,
other non-White races, or as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. Persons of Hispanic and Latino origin
may be of any race (CEQ 1997). The CEQ identifies these groups as minority populations when either (1)
the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage
in the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general
population or the geographic region of comparison (most often the state in which the affected area is
part). The geographical unit for comparison in this analysis is Kentucky.
U.S. Census Bureau data on the racial and ethnic composition of the study area in 2013 are summarized in
Table 4-6. Overall, the majority of the study area is white. Letcher County has a smaller percentage of
minority and Hispanic populations than Kentucky.

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-7

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 4-6. Study Area Percent Race and Ethnicity, 2013
Jurisdiction
Whitesburg, Kentucky
Jenkins, Kentucky
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

White
97.1
98.4
98.3
87.8

Black/African
American
1.5
0.5
0.2
7.9

American
Indian/Alaska
Native
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2

Asian
0.6
0.0
0.6
1.2

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Hispanic
or Latino
Origina
1.3
0.9
0.7
3.2

Notes: Data presented reflects most reported race and ethnicity categories; percentages may not add to 100 percent due to
rounding. *Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014c.

Table 4-7 presents data on low-income families and individuals in the study area. The percentages of
low-income families and individuals in Letcher County with incomes below poverty level (based on
family size and composition) are greater than for Kentucky. In the study area, the City of Jenkins has the
highest percentages of families and individuals with incomes below the poverty level.
Table 4-7. Study Area Percent Below Poverty Level, 2013

Jurisdiction
Whitesburg, Kentucky
Jenkins, Kentucky
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014a.

4.3.1.5

Families Below Poverty Level
5.5
27.6
20.0
14.6

Individuals Below Poverty Level
14.2
32.1
24.2
19.1

Protection of Children

The percentage of children under the age of 18 is lower in Whitesburg, Jenkins, and Letcher County than
for Kentucky (Table 4-8).
Table 4-8. Study Area Percent Under the Age of 18, 2013

Jurisdiction
Whitesburg, Kentucky
Jenkins, Kentucky
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014c.

<18
16.4
20.8
22.3
23.3

Environmental Consequences
4.3.2.1

Population

Approximately 300 new employees would be needed to operate the proposed USP and FPC. It is
anticipated that some of these employees would be existing Bureau employees who would relocate to the
area and the rest would be hired locally. Under a maximum case scenario, all 300 new personnel are
assumed to move to the study area.
The Bureau personnel would likely be accompanied by their families or other household members. The
U.S. Census Bureau has determined that the average household size for the U.S., which is assumed to be
similar to the average household size of transfer employees, is 2.58 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Under
this assumption, approximately 774 people would be added to the study area population. This would
represent 3.2 percent of the Letcher County 2013 population. This gain would help to offset some of the

4-8

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

recent and projected population losses in Letcher County. Alternative 1 would result in a minor beneficial
impact to the study area’s short- and long-term population trends.
4.3.2.2

Employment and Income

The increase of 300 full-time positions would represent approximately 4 percent of the Letcher County
2013 civilian labor force. Study area personal income would also increase as a result of job growth. Some
of the increased wage earnings would be paid to taxes, and some would be saved and invested, but most
would be spent on consumer goods and services in the study area.
This spending would, in turn, “ripple” through the economy, generating additional indirect jobs and
income and benefitting the study area economy. Given the rate of unemployment in the study area
(11.5 percent), it would be expected that many of these indirect positions would be filled by unemployed
local residents. In addition, inmates’ family members would be expected to visit, boosting visitor
spending in hotels/motels and restaurants in the study area. No population in-migration to the study area
would be expected as a result of indirect job growth.
The increase in construction spending would also generate direct construction jobs and indirect jobs,
typically in food services and retail trade. Additional construction workers may move into the study area
in response to the direct construction jobs, but these workers would most likely leave the area for other
opportunities when the construction project nears completion. Further, given the study area
unemployment rate, it would be expected that most of the indirect positions would be filled by
unemployed study area workers. While there may be some population in-migration to the study area as a
result of construction spending, it would not be expected to significantly affect population trends.
Alternative 1 would result in beneficial employment and income impacts in the study area.
While the purchase of land by the Bureau for Alternative 1 would reduce property tax revenues,
additional taxes would accrue to federal, state, and local governments as a result of the increase in
payrolls, and operational and construction spending. It is anticipated that, on balance, the fiscal/economic
impacts would be beneficial and there would be no significant adverse fiscal/economic impacts.
4.3.2.3

Housing

Alternative 1 would result in an increase of 300 full-time positions in the study area. Under a conservative
scenario, all these personnel would seek housing in Letcher County at the same time. This would
represent about 2.6 percent of Letcher County’s total housing units and approximately 14 percent of the
vacant units. Some additional housing may be developed by the private market to support USP and FPC
employees who choose to live in Letcher County. However, not all new personnel would live in Letcher
County and the increase in personnel would occur over the construction period before the USP and FPC
become operational, reducing any potential negative impacts to the study area’s housing market.
4.3.2.4

Environmental Justice

As set forth in the preceding assessment and discussion, the proposed facility at Payne Gap would be
expected to result in minor beneficial economic impacts to the local population as well as beneficial
employment and income impacts to the surrounding community. There are no adverse environmental
impacts that would have disproportionately high or adverse environmental effects on minority or lowincome populations. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in significant adverse impacts to
environmental justice communities.
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-9

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

4.3.2.5

Protection of Children

There are no adverse environmental impacts that would result in disproportionate health or safety risks to
children. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in significant adverse impacts to the health or safety of
children.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USP and FPC would not be constructed. As a result, there would be
no potential for beneficial socioeconomic impacts such as new jobs and potential growth of business
within the region. This could result in the sustained poor economic climate in the region. The No Action
Alternative would not result in adverse impacts to environmental justice communities or children.
Mitigation
No adverse impacts to socioeconomics, environmental justice populations, or children would be expected;
therefore, no mitigation would be warranted.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Affected Environment
4.4.1.1

Police

Law enforcement servicing the area around and including the Payne Gap site includes the Fleming Neon
Police Department, Jenkins Police Department, Letcher County Sheriff, and Kentucky State Police. The
Fleming Neon Police Department has three full-time employees consisting of one police chief and two
police officers, as well as one volunteer, who operate out of a single station in Fleming Neon. The station
has three squad cars and provides service 24-hours a day, seven days a week (Fleming Neon Police
Department 2013).
The Jenkins Police Department has six full-time personnel consisting of one police chief, four police
officers, and the Public Safety Director. The department is currently short staffed by one person. The
police department operates out of one station in Jenkins. The station has eight squad cars and provides 24hour coverage (Jenkins Police Department 2013).
The Letcher County Sheriff’s office is comprised of 13 full-time employees including 10 deputies and 3
dispatchers. The office operates 10 squad cars and is headquartered in Whitesburg. The office provides
24-hour coverage, seven days a week (Letcher County Sheriff 2013).
The Kentucky State Police Post 13 operates out of Hazard, and covers five counties, including Letcher
County. The Hazard Post currently has 39 state troopers, 18 dispatchers, 3 clerks, 1 custodian, 1 criminal
analyst, and 1 arson specialist. They operate 39 squad cars, and have 8 to 10 spare squad cars available in
the event one is needed (Kentucky State Police 2013).
4.4.1.2

Fire

Fire departments that provide emergency services for the Payne Gap area include the Fleming Neon Fire
Department, Jenkins Volunteer Fire Station, and Whitesburg Fire and Rescue. The Fleming Neon Fire
Department has approximately 36 firefighters and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) at the Fleming
Neon Volunteer Fire Station. Sixteen are paid, full-time employees and 20 are volunteers. The station has
seven paramedics and eight EMTs. The department has a single station in Fleming Neon and a substation
4-10

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

in Whitesburg. The Fleming Neon Station has two fire engines, 10 ambulances, 1 tanker truck, 1 rescue
truck, 1 dive trailer (for underwater rescue) and 1 all-terrain vehicle for search and rescue operations.
Four ambulances run during the day and 1 run at night. Firefighters run 3 crews during the day and 1 crew
at night. The station has mutual aid agreements with all the towns in Letcher County (Fleming Neon Fire
Department 2013).
The Jenkins Volunteer Fire Station consists of between 25 and 28 firefighters and three administrative
personnel with two stations in Jenkins. All firefighters are volunteers and 5 of the firefighters are also
EMTs. Equipment associated with the stations includes 2 fire engines, an 85-foot tower truck, a 65-foot
ladder truck, a 2,500-gallon tanker truck, 1 heavy rescue truck, and 1 vehicle for personnel transport. The
Jenkins Volunteer Fire Station has mutual aid agreements with all other stations in Letcher County
(Jenkins Volunteer Fire Station 2013).
Whitesburg Fire and Rescue consists of 30 firefighters: 25 volunteer and 5 paid. Five of the firefighters
are EMTs. The station has five fire engines and a boom truck with a snorkel. Whitesburg Fire and Rescue
has mutual aid agreements with the rest of Letcher County and is able to assist with emergencies
throughout the county if dispatched (Whitesburg Fire and Rescue 2013).
4.4.1.3

Health Care

Appalachian Regional Healthcare (ARH) serves over 350,000 residents in eastern Kentucky and southern
West Virginia. Their operations in Letcher County, Kentucky include the Whitesburg ARH Hospital,
ARH Whitesburg Clinic, Jenkins ARH Family Care Center, Neon ARH Family Care Center, Whitesburg
ARH Surgical Clinic, ARH Cardiology Associates-Whitesburg, and Whitesburg ARH Home Health
Agency. Whitesburg ARH completed an $11 million renovation project in 2011 that included a 15,000
square foot addition to the facility that houses surgical, obstetric, and newborn patients. Renovations to
the existing space included a complete remodel of the third floor to include six Intensive Care Unit beds
and 20 private patient rooms. Whitesburg ARH Hospital provides 24-hour emergency service for both
adult and pediatric patients and has an on-site heliport for receiving and transferring patients. Whitesburg
ARH is an acute care hospital that covers internal medicine, family practice, pediatrics, general surgery,
advanced laparoscopic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, cardiology, pulmonology, radiology and
emergency services (ARH 2014).
Mountain Comprehensive Health Corporation is one of the largest rural health centers in Kentucky. Its
Whitesburg facility is the largest clinic, and offers dental, family and internal medicine, pediatrics,
cardiology, pulmonology, and obstetrics and gynecological services, as well as a rehabilitation program.
Mountain Comprehensive Health Corporation also has a full service laboratory (Mountain
Comprehensive Health Corporation 2015).
4.4.1.4

Schools

The schools in Letcher County are administered by the Letcher County School District. There are five
elementary schools, three middle schools, and one high school. Table 4-9 identifies the names of the
schools, the grades they serve, the number of students enrolled for the 2014–2015 school year, and the
actual capacity of each school.

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-11

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 4-9. Letcher County Schools Enrollment and Capacity for 2014–2015

School
Arlie Boggs Elementary
Cowan Elementary
Fleming Neon Middle School
Letcher County Elementary
Letcher County Middle School
Letcher County Central High School
West Whitesburg Elementary School
Whitesburg Middle School
Martha Jane Potter Elementary
Source: Wagoner 2014.

Grades
K-8
K-8
6-8
K-5
6-8
9-12
K-5
6-8
K-5

Number of Students
127
423
202
372
158
929
392
170
438

Capacity
248
440
352
418
225
1,033
440
225
425

Environmental Consequences
4.4.2.1

Police

The vast majority of inmate incidents that would be likely to occur at the proposed USP would be
addressed internally through Bureau disciplinary proceedings. However, to the extent that limited and
infrequent response by state or local law enforcement is needed, law enforcement groups with jurisdiction
over the Payne Gap site would be able to provide assistance in the event of an emergency that required
assistance beyond the capabilities of the USP and other federal resources. The pertinent state and local
law enforcement agencies have stated that they would be willing to discuss the development of a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Bureau to provide these services. Further, they have
indicated that no significant impacts to their services are expected as a result of the proposed facility.
Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no adverse impacts to law enforcement resources.
4.4.2.2

Fire

The proposed USP and FPC would have trained staff and fire-fighting equipment and resources capable
of responding to and handling most fires or fire-related emergencies that would be likely to occur.
However, to the extent that limited and infrequent response by outside fire or emergency resources would
be needed, the local emergency service providers have indicated that they would be able to provide
assistance in the event of an emergency that was beyond the capabilities of Bureau staff. These local
providers have also indicated that providing such services, if requested, would not be expected to result in
impacts to their services or require the hiring of additional staff (refer to communication logs in Appendix
A, Agency Coordination). Therefore, Alternative 1 would not result in significant impacts to local fire and
rescue services.
4.4.2.3

Health Care

Bureau medical staff would be able to address most health care needs or emergencies that would arise at
the proposed USP and FPC. However, health care facilities are located near the Payne Gap site and would
be able to accommodate inmates at the proposed USP and FPC if needed. Discussions with ARH indicate
they have staff familiar with accommodating inmates and the necessary security requirements that would
need to be implemented to bring an inmate into an ARH facility. ARH indicated this would not be a
problem and they would be able to accommodate the facility if an inmate would require care outside of
the USP or FPC. ARH also indicated they would be willing to work with the Bureau to develop an MOU
(Sparkman 2014). Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to health care services under Alternative
1.
4-12

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

4.4.2.4

Schools

Approximately 300 new employees would be needed to operate the proposed USP and FPC. It is
anticipated that some of these employees would be existing Bureau employees that would relocate to the
area. Under a maximum case scenario, it is assumed Bureau employees relocating to operate the facility
would reside within the immediate area (Whitesburg, Jenkins, or Letcher County). With the exception of
Martha Jane Potter Elementary school, all the schools within Letcher County School District have
sufficient capacity to accept new students.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USP and FPC would not be constructed. Community facilities and
services would continue to operate under existing conditions. Law enforcement, emergency services, and
health care providers within the area would not be asked to support the facility in emergency situations;
therefore, no impacts to these services would occur.
Mitigation
Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts to community facilities and services; therefore, no
mitigation would be required.

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The analysis of transportation and traffic describes both personal and public vehicle movement
throughout a road and highway network. The study area for transportation and traffic includes the road
and highway networks that surround and provide access to the proposed site parcels.
Rural collector roads are divided into major and minor collector roads. Major collector roads are used for
inter-county travel or for carrying vehicles to routes of higher classification (principal arterials and minor
arterials) (Division of Planning 2011). Minor collector roads collect traffic from local roads and carry it to
major collector roads, minor arterial roads, and/or principal arterials. Rural principal arterials are those
roadways that have continuous routes that lend themselves to statewide or interstate travel and typically
have limited access (Division of Planning 2011).
Affected Environment
The Payne Gap site is located approximately 7 miles northeast of Whitesburg. This project alternative
would be constructed to the south of U.S. Route 119, to the east of Bottom Fork Road (KY 3406), and to
the west of Talman Drive. In the project vicinity, U.S. Route 119 is designated as a rural principal arterial
on the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s (KYTC’s) statewide map of roadway functional classifications
(KYTC 2014a). KYTC traffic count station 272 is located on U.S. Route 119 approximately 0.5 miles
west of the site. The year 2010 Annual Average Daily Traffic volume at this location was 6,778 vehicles
per day (KYTC 2014b). The Payne Gap site has several access options. These include driveways onto
Bottom Fork Road, U.S. Route 119, Talman Drive, and a connection to Fork Drive, which is an existing
roadway that extends southward from U.S. Route 119.
As defined by KYTC, rural principal arterials “comprise a system of continuous, connected, rural routes
having trip length and density suitable for statewide or interstate travel. They provide for movement
between all urban areas with a population of 50,000 or more and most urban areas with a population of at
least 25,000” (KYTC 2014a).
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-13

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

A traffic impact study for the Payne Gap site was prepared and concurrence on the results of the study
was received from the KYTC Central Office on April 30, 2015 and from the KYTC District 12 Office on
May 4, 2015 (Appendix A, Agency Coordination). The study identified that U.S. Route 119 is currently
operating at LOS A during both a.m. and p.m. peak periods (7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m., respectively) (Parsons 2015).
Environmental Consequences
4.5.2.1

Construction

Implementation of Alternative 1 would involve temporary traffic impacts resulting from construction
activities. The following types of additional trips are expected to be added to the highway network:
•
•
•

Construction worker commuting trips
Trips involving the delivery and removal of construction equipment and materials
Trips involving the removal of demolition debris and/or excess fill material

These trips would be temporary, and would not continue after the completion of project construction.
Whereas construction worker commuter trips are expected to be concentrated during the traditional peak
commuting periods, other trips would likely be dispersed throughout the typical working day. Trucks
would be used to deliver/remove construction equipment and materials and to remove demolition debris
and/or excess fill material during construction. Because of their size and weight, trucks have a relatively
greater impact on street capacity and pavement conditions, as compared to passenger cars. Given the
temporary nature of construction truck traffic, and given that trucks are not expected to be concentrated in
peak commuting periods, the potential impact to roadway capacity would be less than significant. The
potential impact to roadway wear and tear would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level
with the implementation of the mitigation described below in Section 4.5.4, Mitigation. With
implementation of this measure, the addition of construction-related trips is not expected to result in a
significant traffic-related impact.
4.5.2.2

Operations

Following construction, the proposed federal correctional facility would add traffic to the surrounding
street network on a recurring basis. This traffic increase would include employee commuting trips plus
additional trips (such as the transfer of inmates, inmate visitors, delivery of supplies and equipment, etc.)
that would not necessarily coincide with peak commuting periods. As discussed in Section 1.6, Proposed
Action, the proposed facility would have a staff of 300 full-time employees. The proposed action’s traffic
generation was estimated using trip generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers’ (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (ITE 2012). Table 4-10 presents peak hour traffic generation.
As shown in this table, the proposed facility would add approximately 156 trips during the morning peak
hour and 204 trips during the afternoon peak hour.
Table 4-10. Estimated Peak Hour Trip Generation

In
97

A.M. Peak Hour Trips
Out
59

Total
156

In
55

P.M. Peak Hour Trips
Out
149

Total
204

Note:(a) Land use and trip rates from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (ITE 2012) for Land Use 571 (Prison).
Source: Parsons 2015.

4-14

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

It is anticipated that a higher number of trips are expected to be generated in the p.m. peak period based
on the previous studies performed and documented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual of traffic patterns
associated with a federal correctional facility (Parsons 2015). Additional trips to/from the site are
expected to occur during off-peak hour commuting periods. These off-peak trips may include the transfer
of inmates, inmate visitors, and delivery of supplies and equipment. Based on the relatively low traffic
volumes on U.S. Route 119, there is no anticipated impact associated with these off-peak trips.
The traffic impact analysis determined that with the additional peak hour trips, U.S. Route 119 would
continue to operate at a LOS A during both a.m. and p.m. peak periods. The study also found that the
intersection of U.S. Route 119 and the entrance to the facility would operate at LOS A for westbound
traffic during both a.m. and p.m. peak periods and LOS B for northbound traffic during the same peak
periods (Parsons 2015). Appendix F contains the traffic impact study and Appendix A contains the email
communications with KYTC regarding the traffic impact study. These potential impacts would be
avoided or reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the mitigation described
below in Section 4.5.4, Mitigation.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USP and FPC would not be constructed and increases in traffic to
area roadways would not occur. It is anticipated that traffic would remain close to existing conditions;
therefore, no impacts to transportation or traffic would occur.
Mitigation
Although there are no significant impacts to traffic outlined in the traffic impact study, KYTC has
recommended that consideration be given to constructing a left turn lane on U.S. Route 119 for vehicles
traveling westbound. The left turn lane would minimize the potential for rear-end vehicle collisions.

AIR QUALITY
The air quality analysis evaluates projected future emissions, including construction and operations. Air
quality impacts would be significant if emissions associated with the proposed action would: 1) increase
ambient air pollution concentrations above the NAAQS, 2) impair visibility within federally mandated
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Class I areas, 3) result in the potential for any stationary source to
be considered a major source of emissions if total emissions of any pollutant subject to regulation under
the CAA is greater than 250 tons per year (TPY) for attainment areas, or 4) for mobile source emissions,
result in an increase in emissions to exceed 250 TPY for any pollutant. The air quality assumptions and
calculations are provided in Appendix C, Air Emissions Calculations.
Pollutants considered in this analysis include the criteria pollutants. Airborne lead is classified as a criteria
pollutant. The only possible source of lead associated with the proposed action is from weapon firing at
the outdoor firing range. The potential emission of airborne lead particles from weapon firing is a general
environmental issue and the impacted media are water and soil. Issues regarding lead contamination are
covered under the hazardous waste regulations established under the CWA, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act;
therefore, potential impacts of lead contamination are discussed in Sections 4.12.2.2 and 5.12.2.2,
Hazardous Wastes. There is also the potential for human exposure due to the proximity of the weapon
firing to the breathing zone of the weapon user and instructor, which would be regulated under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act. As such, airborne emissions of lead are not relevant to ambient air
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-15

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

quality and the NAAQS established as part of the CAA. Therefore, lead emissions are not carried forward
in the criteria pollutant analysis.
For criteria pollutant emissions, 250 TPY per pollutant was used as a comparative analysis threshold. This
value is used by the USEPA in their New Source Review standards as an indicator for impact analysis for
listed new major stationary sources in attainment areas. No similar regulatory threshold is available for
mobile source emissions, which are the primary sources for the construction phases, and also a
component of operational emissions for the proposed action. Lacking any mobile source emissions
thresholds, the 250 TPY major stationary source threshold was used to equitably assess and compare
mobile source emissions.
Pollutants would be generated by numerous sources, including diesel exhaust from construction
equipment, gasoline exhaust from employee commuting trips, and operations such as generators and
boilers. In general, volatile organic compound (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxide (NOx), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions would be primarily generated by diesel-fueled heavy equipment operating
in construction areas. Particulate matter (PM) emissions, in the form of PM10 and PM2.5, would be
primarily due to fugitive dust created by land disturbance activities, which would include land clearing;
soil excavation, cutting, and filling; and grading. The fugitive dust emission factor for PM10, which is
used as part of the PM2.5 calculation (Midwest Research Institute 2005), is assumed to include the effects
of typical control measures such as routine site watering and other measures for dust control. A dust
control effectiveness of 50 percent is assumed, based on the estimated control effectiveness of watering
(Western Governors’ Association 2006). Other sources of emissions include diesel emissions from heavy
construction equipment. Refer to Appendix C, Air Emissions Calculations, for further discussion of the
technical approach and assumptions.
Air emissions were analyzed, where applicable, based on proposed construction activities and on
operational emissions that would occur during full operation.
Under the CAA, motor vehicles and construction equipment are exempt from air permitting requirements.
Since the emissions from these sources associated with the proposed action would occur in areas that are
in attainment of the NAAQS for all criteria pollutants, the General Conformity Rule is not applicable.
Nonetheless, NEPA and its implementing regulations require analysis of the significance of air quality
impacts from these sources as well as non-major stationary sources. However, neither NEPA nor its
implementing regulations have established criteria for determining the significance of air quality impacts
from such sources in CAA attainment areas.
As noted above, the General Conformity Rule is not applicable to these mobile sources and minor (i.e.,
non-major) stationary sources in attainment areas. Therefore, the analysis of construction and operational
incremental emissions from these sources in attainment areas and the significance criteria selected (250
TPY) are solely for the purpose of informing the public and decision makers about the relative air quality
impacts from the proposed action under NEPA requirements.
Affected Environment
The study area for the air quality analysis includes the Appalachian Intrastate Air Quality Control Region,
which is defined in 40 CFR 81.191, and comprises several counties in Kentucky, including Letcher
County. Air quality in the study area is considered good, with the study area designated as unclassifiable,
attainment, or better than national standards for all criteria pollutants. Because the study area is in
4-16

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

attainment for all criteria pollutants, the CAA General Conformity Rule does not apply and is not
addressed in this analysis. Although a conformity analysis is not required, impacts to air quality from
emissions associated with construction and operations are addressed in Sections 4.6.2 and 5.6.2,
Environmental Consequences.
Environmental Consequences
The results of the air emissions analysis show that construction and operational emissions under
Alternative 1 would remain well below the significance thresholds and would not have a significant
impact on the local or regional air quality. A summary of the analysis is presented below and the
complete analysis is provided in Appendix C, Air Emissions Calculations.
4.6.2.1

Construction

Direct impacts from emissions from construction would include combustion emissions from fossil fuelpowered equipment and fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) during clearing, demolition activities,
earth moving activities, and operation of equipment on bare soil. Table 4-11 presents estimates for the
primary construction activities that would utilize heavy duty diesel equipment for the Payne Gap site.
Table 4-11. Construction Emission Estimates for Payne Gap Site
Site
Payne Gap
Payne Gap

Year
1
2

VOC
Tons
7.80
7.80

CO
Tons
32.35
32.35

NOx
Tons
108.53
108.53

SO2
Tons
1.90
1.90

PM10
Tons
217.59
147.09

PM2.5
Tons
27.05
20.00

Fugitive dust from land disturbance activities would be the primary source of emissions during
construction, with most of the emissions occurring during Year 1. PM10 emissions are estimated using
wetting and other typical reduction practices to reduce dust release by 50 percent. PM10 emissions are
predicted to be greatest in Year 1 at the Payne Gap site, at 217.59 TPY. These emissions, however, would
remain well below the significance threshold of 250 TPY. Construction emissions would not have direct
or indirect significant impacts on the region’s air quality.
Direct impacts to air quality may also include emissions from the burning of construction debris, if such
an activity were undertaken during construction. Vegetative debris and/or demolition and construction
materials would be disposed in accordance with all laws and regulations. Should open burning be
necessary, it would be conducted in accordance with Title 401 of the Kentucky Administrative
Regulations (KAR), Chapter 63, Section 5 (401 KAR 63:005), Open Burning.
4.6.2.2

Operations

Table 4-12 presents the annual emissions based on the site being fully operational. Operational emissions
would be the same regardless of the location selected. Stationary sources operating on-site include two
2000-kilowatt diesel-powered emergency generators and three boilers to provide heat and hot water for
the site. The boilers have been estimated at 15 MMBtu/hr. One of the boilers would serve as a backup, so
air emission calculations evaluated use of two boilers. All of these stationary sources would require an air
permit and be regulated by the KDEP, Division for Air Quality. Analysis of permit requirements based on
the final stationary source(s) type and design would be performed as design requirements are more fully
delineated. This would ensure regulatory permit compliance and that all requisite source registrations
would be submitted.

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-17

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

In addition to stationary sources, the emissions from staff commuting to and from work have been
estimated at 300 employees and working 365 days per year. The round trip was estimated at 40 miles
because of the rural location of the Payne Gap site.
Table 4-12. Estimated Annual Operational Emissions

Source
Generators
Boilers
Staff Vehicles

Total

VOC
Tons/Year
0.25
0.26
0.19
0.70

CO
Tons/year
2.15
3.80
23.38
29.33

NOx
Tons/ Year
5.09
15.2
1.07
21.36

SO2
Tons/Year
0.00
0.16
0.02
0.18

PM10
Tons/Year
0.27
0.76
0.12
1.16

PM2.5
Tons/Year
0.27
0.19
0.11
0.58

All of the criteria pollutant emissions remain well below the significance threshold of 250 TPY. Based on
the emission estimates, operation of the federal correctional facility at the Payne Gap site would not have
direct or indirect significant impacts on the local or regional air quality.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USP and FPC would not be constructed in Letcher County. The No
Action Alternative would not result in emissions of any air pollutants. Therefore, there would be no
impact to regional air quality.
Mitigation
Best management practices would be implemented to reduce air emissions. They may include, but are not
limited to:
•
•
•
•

Periodic wetting during clearing, excavation, filling, and grading activities to minimize impacts to
air quality (PM10 emissions) from fugitive dust
Utilization of alternatively fueled equipment
Utilization of other emission controls that are applicable to the equipment being used on-site
Reduction of idling time of equipment and construction vehicles

NOISE
Affected Environment
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates noise impacts to workers and sets
forth thresholds for a safe work environment. OSHA has set permissible noise exposure limits (codified
in 29 CFR 1910.95[b]). Based on these limits, an employee should not be subjected to continuous noise
exceeding 90 dBA for durations lasting more than 8 hours per day (Table 4-13). As the level increases,
the allowed duration of noise decreases. The maximum limit is 115 dBA for duration of 15 minutes or
less. OSHA standards are the best documented requirements in regards to long-term human noise
exposure. In addition, OSHA standards state that exposure to impulsive or impact noise (loud, short
duration sounds) is not to exceed 140 dB peak sound pressure level (OSHA 2013).

4-18

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 4-13. OSHA Permissible Noise Exposures

Duration per Day (hours)
8
6
4
3
2
1.5
1
0.5
0.25 or less

Source: 29 CFR 1910.95(b).

Sound Level (dBA)
90
92
95
97
100
102
105
110
115

The Payne Gap site is located in a rural area with minimal noise. Areas of the site located immediately
adjacent to U.S. Route 119 would experience some noise from traffic traveling through the area. There is
nothing located on the site that currently generates noise.
Environmental Consequences
4.7.2.1

Construction

Construction activities under Alternative 1 would result in temporary, short-term increases in noise levels.
Noise associated with construction equipment and vehicles, as well as blasting activities to remove
bedrock, would occur during site preparation and construction.
As stated in Section 4.7.1, Affected Environment, OSHA standards (29 CFR 1910.95) state that
employees should not be subjected to continuous noise exceeding 90 dBA for durations lasting more than
8 hours per day. For the purposes of this analysis, noise at a sensitive receptor above the level for a
residential district, 55 dBA, is noted for impacts, and noise emissions exceeding 90 dBA for more than 8
hours per day at a sensitive receptor location would be considered to have significant adverse impacts.
A noise sensitive receptor is defined as a location or facility where people involved in indoor or outdoor
activities may be subject to stress or considerable interference from noise. Such locations or facilities
often include residential dwellings, hospitals, nursing homes, educational facilities, and libraries.
Sensitive noise receptors may also include supporting habitat for certain wildlife species or noise sensitive
cultural practices.
Alternative 1 would generate noise during the construction phases of the USP and FPC. Phases of
construction that would generate noise include: land clearing and excavations, pile driving, foundation
and capping, erection of structural materials, and construction of exterior walls. Noise from construction
equipment operating at the site, construction/delivery vehicles traveling to and from the site, and pile
driving activities required for placement of deep pile foundations would impact noise levels. Noise levels
at a given receptor location would depend on the type and number of pieces of construction equipment
being operated and the receptor’s distance from the construction site. Construction related noise emissions
are listed in Table 4-14 and can range from 74 to 101 dBA when measured 50 feet from the respective
piece of equipment.

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-19

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 4-14. Airborne Construction Related Noise Emissions
Equipment Description
Flat Bed Truck
Welder/Torch
Man Lift
Dump Truck
Backhoe
Compressor (air)
Concrete Mixer Truck
Drill Rig Truck
Front End Loader
Rivet Buster/Chipping Gun
Ventilation Fan
Drum Mixer
Vibratory Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump Truck
Crane
Generator
Pumps
Dozer
Boring Jack Power Unit
Warning Horn
Auger Drill Rig
Scraper
Pneumatic Tools
Vacuum Excavator
Vibrating Hopper
Jackhammer
Concrete Saw
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Sheers (on backhoe)
Impact Pile Driver
Vibratory Pile Driver

Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006.

Actual Measured Lmax at
50 feet (dBA)
74
74
75
76
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
81
81
81
81
82
83
83
84
84
85
85
87
89
90
90
96
101
101

Small increases in noise levels would be expected as a result of the operation of delivery trucks and other
construction vehicles. However, larger increases in noise levels would result if pile driving activities are
necessary. Increased noise levels would be greatest during the early stages of each construction phase,
although these periods would be of relatively short duration. However, under the worst case scenario
during pile driving, there would be periods during construction when noise would range from 101 dBA at
50 feet from the equipment to 89 dBA at 200 feet from the equipment. The 200-foot radius from the
equipment would encompass primarily rural undeveloped areas, depending on the location of the pile
driving equipment at any given time on the Payne Gap site. Residences adjacent to the Payne Gap site are
well over 200 feet from the majority of construction areas. When compared to the existing noise
conditions at the Payne Gap site (35 dBA) and the OSHA noise thresholds for workers, the pile driving
activities would result in significant short-term impacts to noise receptors located within 200 feet of the
pile driving equipment location at the construction site, which would vary as the foundation piles would
be driven throughout the foundation footprint. Moderate noise impacts would extend up to 1.5 miles from
the construction site, as this is the distance at which noise levels would attenuate down to 55–60 dBA.
4-20

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

In conclusion, temporary and short-term noise disturbance would occur during construction; however,
implementation of noise attenuation measures described below would reduce potential disturbance from
noise. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts to sensitive noise
receptors from noise.
4.7.2.2

Operations

The operation of the proposed USP and FPC, once construction is completed, is not expected to
significantly increase ambient noise levels.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USP and FPC would not be constructed and no increases in noise as
a result of construction or operation would occur. It is anticipated that the site would remain undeveloped;
therefore, no increases in noise that my present impacts to nearby noise receptors would occur.
Mitigation
To minimize the impact to noise receptors during the operation of the pile driving equipment, a variety of
measures would be taken, including but not limited to:
•
•
•

Using noise bellows systems to provide further noise attenuation
Performing the work during daytime hours
Scheduling the louder construction activities for less intrusive times (mid-morning to midafternoon)

INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
Affected Environment
4.8.1.1

Potable Water

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, public water systems are required to regularly test produced water
for more than 90 contaminants, such as bacteria, nitrates, and other chemicals. The KDEP Division of
Water is responsible for protecting the public’s potable drinking water supply. Title 401 KAR Chapter 8
outlines the requirements for public water systems. This includes both treatment of water for distribution
to the public, as well as quality assurance procedures. Under 401 KAR Chapter 8, public water suppliers
must submit monthly reports to the Division of Water. A public water system must take corrective action
and notify its customers when water samples exceed the limit for a contaminant.
The Letcher County Water and Sewer District (LCWSD) purchases water from the City of Jenkins to
distribute in the Payne Gap area. The Bureau reviewed the Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs or
Water Quality Reports) for the LCWSD and the City of Jenkins for the past three reporting years of 2012,
2013, and 2014. In 2014, the LCWSD had an issue for failing to submit reports to the drinking water
database on time. A review of the CCRs for 2012, 2013 and 2014 for the Jenkins Water Treatment plant
indicates some issues regarding the timely submission of regular monitoring reports, but no violations.
The Jenkins Water Treatment plant is now in compliance. The Jenkins Water Treatment Plant has a
current capacity of 83,520 gallons per day (Lewis 2015).
The LCWSD has been extending its service area, including an area along U.S. Route 119, adjacent to the
Payne Gap site. The water main at this location is 8 inches in diameter and has water pressure near the
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-21

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

connection point of approximately 110 pounds per square inch. Potable water would be provided by the
LCWSD via a connection approximately 3.5 miles away from the Payne Gap site (Cardno 2014a).
Because municipally supplied water in the city of Jenkins is drawn from surface waters of Jenkins Lake in
the North Fork Kentucky River watershed, indirect impacts to public health have the potential to occur if
drinking water quality were to be compromised by coal mining or other activities in the watershed
(LCWSD 2014). The water supply would need be treated to meet drinking water standards prior to
distribution to consumers. If drinking water standards cannot be met a public health advisory would be
issued and consumers would be advised as to how to further treat the water at home (i.e., boiling) or a
consumption ban would be implemented and consumers would be provided with bottled water (KDEP
2015).
4.8.1.2

Wastewater

Sanitary sewer service would be provided by the City of Jenkins and treated at the Jenkins Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP). The nearest connection point is located at the Gateway Industrial Park in
Jenkins, approximately 1.5 miles east of the Payne Gap site (Figure 4-2). The facility was designed to
treat approximately 600,000 gallons per day and currently treats approximately 400,000 gallons per day
(KRADD 2013).
4.8.1.3

Natural Gas

There is one gas well located in the northeast corner of the Payne Gap site. In addition, there is also an
aboveground 16-inch high pressure transmission line running directly through the property. The gas well
and transmission line are both owned by EQT (Cardno 2014a).
4.8.1.4

Electricity

American Electric Power (AEP) lines extend along U.S. Route 119 in the vicinity of the Payne Gap site
and would be able to provide electricity to the Payne Gap site (Cardno 2014a).
4.8.1.5

Telecommunications

Windstream provides telecommunications service in the area of Payne Gap with fiber and copper cables
in the vicinity of U.S. Route 119. Windstream has sufficient capacity in this area to provide adequate
service to the proposed Bureau facility (Cardno 2014a).
4.8.1.6

Solid Waste

Solid waste generated within Letcher County is disposed of at the Laurel Ridge Landfill in London,
Kentucky, approximately 90 miles west of Whitesburg (Laurel Ridge Landfill 2014). The Laurel Ridge
Landfill has a maximum annual limit of 350,000 tons. The landfill currently receives approximately
320,000 tons annually. Based on their current capacity, the landfill has a 30-year life expectancy.
Environmental Consequences
4.8.2.1

Potable Water

The Bureau would purchase potable water from the LCWSD for the Payne Gap site under Alternative 1.
CCRs for the LCWSD and the City of Jenkins for the past three reporting years did not indicate any
violations for drinking water quality standards. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1 would have no
significant impacts to water quality.
4-22

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 4-2. Payne Gap Existing Utilities

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-23

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

The USP and FPC are anticipated to require 214 gallons per day per inmate. Based on an anticipated
inmate population of 1,200, a total of 258,000 gallons per day would be required under the proposed
action. Additionally, the utility plant, warehouses, and training building would require approximately
6,160 gallons per day. Therefore, operation of the proposed federal correctional facility would require
approximately 264,000 gallons of potable water per day. The current capacity of the Jenkins Water
Treatment Plant is 83,520 gallons per day. If the Bureau selects Alternative 1, modifications to the
Jenkins Water Treatment Plant would be needed to meet the increased demand. Consequently, Alternative
1 would result in significant impacts to LCWSD’s potable water capacity.
4.8.2.2

Wastewater

Average wastewater generated by the USP, FPC, and ancillary facilities is anticipated to be 224,000
gallons per day. This would result in the City of Jenkins WWTP exceeding their design capacity of
600,000 gallons per day by approximately 24,000 gallons per day. As a result, Alternative 1 would result
in significant impacts to the City of Jenkins wastewater treatment capacity.
4.8.2.3

Natural Gas

Implementation of the proposed action at the Payne Gap site would result in the closure and abandonment
of a gas well and relocation of an aboveground natural gas pipeline. Closure of the gas well would result
in lost natural gas production and profit to the owner of the well, EQT. Additionally, the relocation of the
natural gas pipeline would result in a loss of transmission and resulting profit to EQT during the
relocation process. EQT would also have to expend resources to relocate the gas line, as well as acquire
right-of-way and permits to complete the relocation. Due to the location of the Jefferson National Forest
to the south, the relocation of the line is limited to moving it to the north of its current location. As a
result of the implementation of Alternative 1, significant impacts to natural gas infrastructure would
occur.
4.8.2.4

Electricity

In coordination with the electric service provider, AEP has indicated it has ample capacity to provide
service to the federal correctional facility. AEP would extend overhead lines to a predetermined handoff
point to the secure facility and the Bureau would extend the service on-site to the needed facilities
(Cardno 2014a). There would be no charge to extend the overhead lines to the handoff point and no issues
with capacity; therefore, no adverse impacts to electrical capacity would occur under Alternative 1.
4.8.2.5

Telecommunications

Windstream has indicated that they have sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the proposed USP, FPC,
and ancillary facilities at the Payne Gap site. The Bureau would be responsible for connecting the fiber
cables at a splice location adjacent to the Payne Gap site, as well as connecting copper cables at the
Gateway Industrial Park in Jenkins. Connection costs would be approximately $35,000. Under
Alternative 1, there would be no significant impacts to telecommunications service.
4.8.2.6

Solid Waste

The Bureau estimates that an inmate would generate 4 pounds of solid waste per day or 1,460 pounds per
year. With an estimated 1,200 inmates, the proposed action would generate 4,800 pounds per day of solid
waste, or 1,752,000 pounds per year (876 TPY). The solid waste generated at the federal correctional
facility would increase the amount of solid waste taken to the Laurel Ridge Landfill from 320,000 TPY to
4-24

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

320,876 TPY. This increase would not result in the landfill going over its current yearly maximum intake
of solid waste; therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to the Laurel Ridge Landfill from
implementation of Alternative 1.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USP and FPC would not be constructed and the Payne Gap site is
anticipated to remain undeveloped. If the Payne Gap site is not developed, then there would be no
requirement for additional utilities. Therefore, it is anticipated that utility usage would remain similar to
existing usage.
Mitigation
Mitigation for impacts to wastewater treatment as a result of the implementation of the proposed action at
the Payne Gap site would require either the upgrade of the existing City of Jenkins WWTP or the
construction of a new WWTP closer to the Payne Gap site. Coordination with the City of Jenkins
indicates there are two options to provide wastewater treatment to the Payne Gap site (Cardno 2014a).
The Bureau would have to pay for these mitigation measures, which would total approximately
$3,800,000.
Mitigation for impacts to natural gas infrastructure at the Payne Gap site would require the Bureau to pay
for the closure of the gas well and relocation of the natural gas pipeline. The cost of closing the gas well
would be $850,000. Additionally, the aboveground gas line would require relocation off-site. It is
anticipated that 9,000 linear feet of gas line would need to be relocated at a cost of $455 per linear foot
(Cardno 2014a; see Appendix D, Enhanced Utility Report). This would result in a total cost for relocation
of approximately $4,095,000. The Bureau would also have to pay a connection fee of $110,000. In
addition to the relocation costs, it would take a minimum of two years to design, permit, and install the
pressure main. The Bureau would also be required to assess the impacts of both the removal of the gas
line and the relocation of the gas line, which could result in additional studies and mitigation (i.e., wetland
delineation, cultural resource studies, threatened and endangered species). The gas well on the Payne Gap
site would be permanently closed and abandoned and the gas line relocated according to standards
required by federal and state regulations. Groundwater at the Payne Gap site would not be used for any
purpose at the USP or FPC.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
An APE was defined to take into consideration both potential direct and indirect effects to cultural
resources from implementation of the proposed action at the Payne Gap site. The APE for Alternative 1
includes the 753-acre (305-hectare) Payne Gap site and adjacent areas to the north (Figure 4-3). The APE
extends beyond the north boundary of the Payne Gap site because of the potential for visual effects to any
historic properties that may be present within the viewshed of the proposed federal correctional facility’s
one- to four-story buildings. Effects to archaeological resources, however, would be limited to the 300acre (121-hectare) area within the APE where construction (direct ground disturbance) would occur.
Affected Environment
4.9.1.1

Archaeological Resources

The Payne Gap site has been subject to previous mining activities; however, the mining activities did not
appear to extend to the entire site. Therefore, a Phase I Archaeological Survey was conducted in August
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-25

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2011 and an additional Phase I archaeological investigation was conducted in August 2014. The surveys
included pedestrian traversal of transects across areas that were not too steep, surface survey in areas of
high ground surface visibility, search of rocky outcrops for rockshelters and other cultural features, and
limited subsurface testing of flatter ridgetop, ridgeline, and slope terraces. In addition, background
research indicated that no previously identified archaeological sites were present at the proposed Payne
Gap site.
A total of 40 shovel test pits were excavated within the APE during both Phase I surveys. No artifacts and
no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites eligible for listing on the NRHP were discovered. As a
result of both surveys, no further work was recommended at the proposed Payne Gap site. Concurrence
on the 2011 survey recommendation was received from the SHPO on January 24, 2012, and concurrence
on the 2014 survey recommendation was received on December 22, 2014 (Appendix A, Agency
Coordination).
4.9.1.2

Traditional Cultural Properties

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, a federal agency is required to give consideration to issues of traditional
religious or cultural areas concerning Native American groups. No TCPs have been identified within the
APE for Alternative 1 based on there being no federally recognized tribes within Kentucky.
4.9.1.3

Architectural Resources

Architectural surveys were conducted to identify historic properties in the Payne Gap site APE. The initial
reconnaissance survey of the APE was conducted in May 2011. The survey recommended four
architectural resources for further investigation to determine their eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP.
Other architectural resources located in the APE were not associated with significant historical or
architectural contexts of Letcher County and/or were in poor condition; therefore, they were not
recommended for further work (TEC, Inc. 2011a). The Kentucky Heritage Council (KHC), the Kentucky
SHPO, concurred with the reconnaissance survey recommendations (KHC 2011).
An intensive level survey of the four architectural resources recommended for further investigation as a
result of the reconnaissance survey was conducted in August 2013. The resources consist of two
cemeteries (LR149 and LR150); a late-nineteenth century vernacular T-plan house (LR151); and an earlytwentieth century vernacular central passage, double pile house (LR188) (Figure 4-3; Table 4-15).

4-26

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 4-3. Architectural Resources Evaluated in the APE for Alternative 1
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-27

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 4-15. Architectural Resources in the Payne Gap Site APE Evaluated for NRHP Eligibility

Site
Number
LR149
LR150
LR151

Property Name
Laurel Fork Cemetery
Wright Cemetery
Samuel J. Wright House

Year Built
1918–present
1863–1961
Ca. 1885

LR188

Holbrook-Craft House

Ca. 1903–1914

Description

Cemetery
Private, family cemetery
Vernacular T-plan residence
Vernacular central passage, double pile
house

NRHP
Eligibility
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Not Eligible

Archival and historical research and detailed field survey were undertaken to evaluate the NRHP
eligibility of each property. Based on the field and research data, the survey concluded that none of the
resources are eligible because they do not meet the NRHP criteria for eligibility (Cardno 2014b). The
KHC concurred that the resources are not eligible for the NRHP (KHC 2014) (Appendix A, Agency
Coordination).
Environmental Consequences
The cultural resources surveys for the proposed action did not identify any archaeological sites or
architectural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP in the APE for the Payne Gap site. Therefore,
Alternative 1 would have no effect on NRHP-listed or eligible cultural resources.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the USP and FPC would not be constructed and the site would remain
undeveloped and no potential impacts to cultural resources would occur.
Mitigation
Alternative 1 would have no impact to NRHP-listed or eligible cultural resources; therefore, no mitigation
is required.

WATER RESOURCES
Affected Environment
4.10.1.1

Surface Water

The U.S. is divided and sub-divided into successively smaller hydrologic units, which are classified into
six levels: regions, sub-regions, basins, sub-basins, watersheds, and sub-watersheds. The Payne Gap site
lies in the Ohio Region (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 05); Kentucky-Licking Subregion (HUC 0510);
the Kentucky River Basin (HUC 051002); and the North Fork Kentucky River Watershed (HUC
05100201) (USEPA 2013a). The Payne Gap site contains surface water features including headwater
intermittent and perennial streams. Hydrology at the site has been highly disturbed by historic mining
activities.
None of the streams on the Payne Gap site have been assessed for state water quality standards
(USEPA 2013a). There are no identified impaired waters or TMDLs for the Payne Gap site. The closest
assessed water body to the Payne Gap site is Fish Pond, located north of the site, on the opposite side of
U.S. Route 119. Fish Pond was determined to be good for secondary contact recreation water, warm water
aquatic habitat, and cold water aquatic habitat (USEPA 2013a).

4-28

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Mining operations in the region have the potential to affect water quality of the North Fork Kentucky
River Watershed. There are three active mining operations in the watershed. These mining operations
have no direct impacts on water quality of the Payne Gap site due to their distance and hydrological
separation from the site.
4.10.1.2

Wetlands

Site-specific wetland data was collected through on-site field work, aerial photographs, topographic maps,
National Wetland Inventory wetland maps, and Natural Resources Conservation Service soil surveys.
Pursuant to EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, Section 404 of the CWA, and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899, an investigation was conducted to identify potential jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Wetlands in areas proposed to be impacted by the proposed action were delineated in May 2011.
Proposed impact areas included excavation needed for construction, access roads (approximately 50 feet
on either side of the existing access roads), and areas previously disturbed by past mining or gas line
activities. Additional wetland delineation was conducted in 2014 based on the proposed conceptual
layout. The 2011 and 2014 wetland delineations included jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and isolated
wetlands that may be exempt from USACE jurisdiction but may be protected by the KDEP. These studies
supplant the usage of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Wetland Mapper because it is believed they
are significantly more accurate; however, NWI data was used for areas not delineated during fieldwork.
The delineations identified approximately 2.84 acres (1.15 hectares) of wetlands within the proposed
project area on the Payne Gap site. The majority of the wetlands are located immediately adjacent to an
existing or historic road, which has impacted water movement in the area. The NWI does not depict any
wetlands within or outside of the proposed project area. In addition, several intermittent, perennial, and
ephemeral streams were delineated on site (TEC, Inc. 2011b; Cardno 2014c). Hydrology supporting the
wetlands is a result of both groundwater and surface water, runoff, and direct precipitation. Dominant
vegetation within the wetlands identified at the Payne Gap site consists of Eleocharis obtusa, common
rush (Juncus effuses), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), and sallow sedge (Carex lurida). Figure 4-4
depicts the wetlands and streams delineated within the Payne Gap site and Table 4-16 lists the acreages
of wetlands by type and the linear feet of jurisdictional streams.
Table 4-16. Wetland and Streams Delineated at Payne Gap

Payne Gap Site
Acres/Hectares
Linear Feet

Feature Type
Wetlands
Palustrine Emergent
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
Palustrine Forested
Streams
Jurisdictional Stream
Non-Jurisdictional Stream
Note: N/A = Not Applicable.

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Total

0.9/0.4
1.2/0.5
0.8/0.3

N/A
N/A
N/A

N/A
N/A
2.9/1.2

13,317
13,317

4-29

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 4-4. Payne Gap Wetlands and Streams
4-30

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

4.10.1.3

Groundwater

The Payne Gap site has two domestic single household drinking water wells located on the northern
portion of the site. One well is at an elevation of 1,500 feet with water found at 60 feet below the surface.
The second well is located at an elevation of 1,480 feet with water found at an elevation of 40 feet below
the surface (KGS 2013). Groundwater flow tends to follow the sloped topography and is assumed to flow
to the north, east, and west towards the North Fork Kentucky River, Cook Hollow, and Laurel Fork,
respectively. Variations in groundwater conditions are expected based on location and elevation across the
site, seasonal conditions, and weather patterns. The Payne Gap site is underlain by the Breathitt Group,
which is composed of the Pikeville Formation and the Hyden Formation. The Breathitt Group yields more
than 500 gallons per day in more than three-quarters of the wells drilled in valley bottoms, more than 500
gallons per day in about three-quarters of the wells on hillsides, and more than 100 gallons per day to
nearly all wells on ridges within Letcher County (KGS 2013). There are no sole source aquifers underlying
the site (USEPA 2013b).
The quality of the groundwater in Letcher County ranges from moderately hard in most of the county to
moderately soft south of Pine Mountain. Naturally occurring contaminants present in the groundwater
consist of sulfate, salt (sodium chloride), iron, and manganese (KGS 2013).
According to the Kentucky Division of Water, Groundwater Branch, Letcher County has areas of moderate
and high sensitivity to groundwater pollution. The hydrogeologic sensitivity reflects the ease and speed
with which a contaminant can move into and within a groundwater system. The hydrogeologic sensitivity
of Letcher County has been assigned a value of three out of five, with five being the most susceptible to
groundwater pollution and one being the least susceptible. The region is given a three due to subcutaneous
drain and enlarged fractures influence groundwater recharge, fissure networks influence flow, and
bidirectional dispersal patterns influence overall dispersion (KDEP 1994).
4.10.1.4

Floodplains

The Payne Gap site is depicted on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map Panel 21133C00140C. The map indicates the Payne Gap site is not located in a 100-year
floodplain (FEMA 2008).
Environmental Consequences
4.10.2.1

Surface Water

It is not anticipated that water quality of nearby streams and wetlands would be adversely impacted by on
site construction. BMPs would be implemented based on an approved erosion and sediment control plan,
which would minimize sediment and pollutants from the construction site being carried into nearby water
courses.
4.10.2.2

Wetlands

Implementation of Alternative 1 at the Payne Gap site would result in approximately 10,512 linear feet of
stream impacts, 0.43 acres (0.17 hectares) of impacts to palustrine emergent wetlands, 0.76 acres (0.31
hectares) of impacts to palustrine forested wetlands, and 1.2 acres (0.49 hectares) of impacts to palustrine
scrub-shrub wetlands. These impacts would be to the streams and wetlands delineated in 2011 and 2014
(refer to Table 4-16), and would result primarily from the excavation and grading activities that would be
required to prepare the site for the development of the USP, FPC, ancillary buildings, and roads.
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-31

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

4.10.2.3

Groundwater

The Bureau would prepare and implement a groundwater protection plan in accordance with Kentucky
regulations (401 KAR 5:037) to protect groundwater quality during construction and operation of the
federal correctional facility under Alternative 1. The site-specific groundwater protection plan would
describe the activities that have the potential to pollute groundwater and include the measures and
practices that will be implemented during construction and operation of the facility. Groundwater at the
Payne Gap site would not be used for any purpose at the USP or FPC; therefore, there would be no human
health impacts associated with groundwater use, nor would there be direct or indirect impacts to
groundwater quantity. Therefore, construction and operation of the USP and FPC under Alternative 1
would have no significant impacts related to groundwater.
4.10.2.4

Floodplains

The Payne Gap site is not located within a 100-year floodplain; therefore, no impacts to floodplains would
occur under Alternative 1.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the Payne Gap site would not be developed and no impacts to surface
waters or wetlands would occur.
Mitigation
The Bureau met with the USACE on May 19, 2015 to discuss mitigation related to wetland and stream
impacts. Since the Payne Gap site is not the preferred alternative no mitigation would be warranted for the
site at this time.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Affected Environment
4.11.1.1

Vegetation

The Payne Gap site is dominated by mature hardwood second growth forest with herbaceous and scrub
shrub vegetation in areas previously disturbed by historic strip mining activities and along the shoulders of
the site access roads. Site observations indicate upland vegetation on the Payne Gap site includes
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), northern red oak (Quercus rubra),
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), American elm (Ulmus americana), Allegheny blackberry (Rubus
allegheniensis), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), white clover (Trifolium repens), sericea lespedeza
(Lespedeza cuneata), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and summer
grape (Vitis aestivalis). Wetland vegetation includes American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), black
willow (Salix nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), common rush,
broadleaf cattail, fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), sallow sedge, and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus).
4.11.1.2

Wildlife

Non-avian species likely to be found on the Payne Gap site include coyote (Canis latrans), Virginia
opossum (Dipelphis virginiana), American black bear (Ursus americanus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius),
white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), American toad (Bufo
americanus), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsolete), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), eastern
4-32

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos), and fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates) (Kentucky Department of
Fish and Wildlife Resources 2013). A herd of eastern elk (Cervus elaphus) was observed on the Payne Gap
site during a site visit.
The MBTA is the primary legislation established to conserve migratory birds. The act prohibits taking,
killing, or possessing migratory birds unless permitted by regulation. Representative migratory bird species
potentially occurring in Letcher County and within the project area include tufted titmouse (Baeolophus
bicolor), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), black-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus erythropthalmus), blue-winged warbler (Vermivora pinus), cerulean warbler (Dendroica
cerulea), Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus), prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor), Swainson’s
warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii), worm eating warbler (Helmitheros vermivorum), fox sparrow
(Passerella iliaca), wood thrush (Hylocichia mustelina), Louisiana waterthrush (Parkesia motacilla), least
bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), rusty blackbird (Euphagus
carolinus), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), pied-billed
grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus)
(USFWS 2015a).
4.11.1.3

Threatened and Endangered Species

Due to the number of state-listed species listed by Kentucky as potentially occurring in Letcher County,
the following section focuses on federally listed species. A full list of listed species and their status is
included in Table 4-17.
Table 4-17. State and Federal Report of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Plants,
and Animals of Letcher County, Kentucky

Scientific Name
Liverworts
Plagiochila caduciloba
Mosses
Anomodon rugelii
Brachythecium populeum
Cirriphyllum piliferum
Dicranodontium asperulum
Entodon brevisetus
Neckera pennata
Oncophorus raui
Polytrichum pallidisetum
Polytrichum strictum
Sphagnum quinquefarium
Vascular Plants
Adlumia fungosa
Angelica triquinata
Baptisia tinctoria
Botrychium matricariifolium
Boykinia aconitifolia
Carex aestivalis
Carex appalachica
Castanea pumila
Circaea alpine
Corydalis sempervirens

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Common Name

Status (State/Federal)

Gorge Leafy Liverwort

E/N

None
Matted Feather Moss
None
None
None
None
None
A Hair Cap Moss
None
Five-ranked Bogmoss

T/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
E/N

Allegheny-vine
Filmy Angelica
Yellow Wild Indigo
Matricary Grape-fern
Brook Saxifrage
Summer Sedge
Appalachian Sedge
Allegheny Chinkapin
Small Enchanter’s Nightshade
Rock Harlequin

H/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
E/N
E/N
T/N
T/N
S/N
S/N
4-33

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 4-17. State and Federal Report of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Plants,
and Animals of Letcher County, Kentucky

Scientific Name
Cymophyllus fraserianus
Cypripedium parviflorum
Eupatorium steelei
Gentiana decora
Hexastylis contracta
Houstonia serpyllifolia
Hydrophyllum virginianum
Juglans cinerea
Leucothoe recurve
Lilium superbum
Listera smallii
Monotropsis odorata
Oenothera oakesiana
Oenothera perennis
Orontium aquaticum
Pogonia ophioglossoides
Prosartes maculate
Sanguisorba Canadensis
Saxifraga michauxii
Saxifraga micranthidifolia
Solidago curtisii
Trillium undulatum
Terrestrial Snails
Glyphyalinia rhoadsi
Neohelix dentifera
Patera panselenus
Crustaceans
Cambarus bunting
Cambarus parvoculus
Insects
Amphiagrion saucium
Calephelis borealis
Erora laeta
Litobrancha recurvate
Papaipema speciosissima
Phyciodes batesii
Stylurus notatus
Stylurus scudderi
Fishes
Chrosomus cumberlandensis
Etheostoma sagitta spilotum
Amphibians
Cryptobranchus a. alleganiensis
Plethodon wehrlei
Birds
Accipiter striatus
Corvus corax
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Tyto alba
Vermivora chrysoptera
4-34

Common Name
Fraser’s Sedge
Small Yellow Lady’s-slipper
Steele’s Joe-pye-weed
Showy Gentian
Southern Heartleaf
Michaux’s Bluets
Eastern Waterleaf
White Walnut
Red-twig Doghobble
Turk’s Cap Lily
Kidney-leaf Twayblade
Sweet Pinesap
Evening Primrose
Small Sundrops
Golden Club
Rose Pogonia
Nodding Mandarin
Canada Burnet
Michaux’s Saxifrage
Lettuce-leaf Saxifrage
Curtis’ Goldenrod
Painted Trillium

Status (State/Federal)
E/N
T/N
T/N
S/N
E/SOMC
E/N
T/N
T/SOMC
E/N
T/N
T/N
T/SOMC
H/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
S/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
S/N
T/N

Sculpted Glyph
Big-tooth Whitelip
Virginia Bladetooth

T/N
T/N
S/N

Longclaw Crayfish
Mountain Midget Crayfish

S/N
T/N

Eastern Red Damsel
Northern Metalmark T
Early Hairstreak
A Burrowing Mayfly
Osmunda Borer Moth
Tawny Crescent
Elusive Clubtail
Zebra Clubtail

E/N
T/N
T/N
S/N
E/N
H/SOMC
E/SOMC
E/N

Blackside Dace
Kentucky Arrow Darter

T/LT
S/PT

Eastern Hellbender
Wehrle’s Salamander

E/SOMC
E/N

Sharp-shinned Hawk
Common Raven
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Barn Owl
Golden-winged Warbler

S/N
T/N
S/N
S/N
T/SOMC
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 4-17. State and Federal Report of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Plants,
and Animals of Letcher County, Kentucky

Scientific Name
Mammals
Clethrionomys gapperi maurus
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Mustela nivalis
Myotis grisescens
Myotis leibii
Myotis septentrionalis
Myotis sodalis
Sorex cinereus
Sorex dispar blitchi
Spilogale putorius
Ursus americanus

Common Name

Kentucky Red-backed Vole
Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat
Least Weasel
Gray Bat
Eastern Small-footed Myotis
Northern Long-Eared Bat
Indiana Bat
Cinereus Shrew
Long-tailed Shrew
Eastern Spotted Skunk
American Black Bear

Status (State/Federal)

S/SOMC
S/SOMC
S/N
T/E
T/SOMC
E/T
E/E
S/N
E/N
S/N
S/N

Notes: E = Endangered, H = Historical, LT = Listed as Threatened, N = None, PT = Proposed Threatened, S = Special Concern,
SOMC = Species of Management Concern, T = Threatened.
Sources: Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 2014; USFWS 2014, 2015c, d.

Based on coordination with the USFWS, four federally listed species have the potential to occur within the
Payne Gap site: gray bat, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, and Kentucky arrow darter (USFWS 2014).
The gray bat (Myotis grisescens) is federally listed as endangered and listed by Kentucky as threatened.
The gray bat roosts in caves throughout the year although suitable caves are rare. For winter hibernacula
the bats require vertical caves with domed halls. The winter caves must also have a temperature of between
6 and 11 degrees Celsius. Forested areas along the banks of streams and lakes provide important protection
for adults and young. Summer caves are always within 1 kilometer (0.62 mile) of a river or reservoir where
the bats forage. Forests provide important feeding areas for young bats, which will not forage in areas
where the forests have been cleared (Natureserve 2013a).
The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) is federally and state-listed as endangered. The Indiana bat hibernates in
caves; however, maternity sites are generally behind loose bark of dead or dying trees or in tree cavities.
They forage in riparian areas, upland forests, ponds, and fields, but forested landscapes are the most
important habitat. They typically hibernate in the coldest area of a cave to ensure a low enough metabolic
rate in order to conserve fat reserves throughout the winter; however, they will move away from areas that
dip below freezing. Known roost tree species include elm, oak, beech, hickory, maple, ash, sassafras,
birch, sycamore, locust, aspen, cottonwood, pine, and hemlock with a preference for trees with exfoliating
bark (Natureserve 2013b).
The northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) was listed as threatened under the ESA in April 2015
and is listed by Kentucky as endangered (Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 2014; USFWS
2015d). The northern long-eared bat hibernates in the small cracks and crevices of caves and mines that
have large passages and relatively constant, cool temperatures with high humidity and no air currents.
During the summer they roost singly or in colonies underneath bark or in cavities, crevices, or hollows of
both live and dead trees within forests, woodlots with dense or loose aggregates of trees, riparian forests,
and other wooded corridors. Males or non-reproductive females may also roost in caves or mines. In
addition, northern long-eared bats have been observed roosting in structures such as barns and bridges.

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-35

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

They are not considered to be a long-distance migrant, as they typically migrate 35–55 miles between their
winter hibernacula and summer habitat (USFWS 2015b).
A Phase I bat survey conducted in December 2014 confirmed the presence of both winter and summer
habitat at the Payne Gap site (Copperhead Environmental Consulting 2015). In addition, one mine opening
contained a torpid Indiana bat at its entrance. The USFWS concurred with the findings of the Phase I
survey and indicated additional studies at the Payne Gap site would be required if this site were moved
forward for development (Appendix A, Agency Coordination).
The Kentucky arrow darter was proposed for listing as a threatened species under the ESA in September
2015 (USFWS 2015c). The Kentucky arrow darter is known to exist in the upper Kentucky River basin.
Habitat for the species consists of pools and transitional areas between riffles and pools in moderate to
high gradient streams (USFWS 2015c). The streams within the Payne Gap site are primarily small
channels that do not contain riffle and pool complexes.
There is no federally designated critical habitat on the Payne Gap site (USFWS 2013).
Environmental Consequences
4.11.2.1

Vegetation

Direct impacts to vegetation would occur under Alternative 1 as approximately 218 acres (88 hectares) of
forested area would be cleared on the Payne Gap site for excavation and grading activities required to
prepare the site for development.
4.11.2.2

Wildlife

Wildlife species found on the Payne Gap site would likely be displaced during construction activities due
to the loss of habitat and increases in noise. However, approximately 535 acres (217 hectares) of the site
would remain undisturbed and continue to provide habitat, including breeding and foraging areas, for
wildlife species found on-site. Additionally, the site is surrounded by similar habitat that could
accommodate species that are displaced by construction activities. Based on the available habitat that
would remain on site and habitat adjacent to the site (Jefferson National Forest), it is anticipated that these
impacts would not adversely affect wildlife species that are currently present on-site.
Use of the non-lethal/lethal fence has the potential to result in adverse impacts to small animals and avian
species, should they pass through the outer fences and into the area of the non-lethal/lethal fence.
4.11.2.3

Threatened and Endangered Species

Implementation of the proposed action at the Payne Gap site has the potential to impact the federally listed
Indiana bat, gray bat, and northern long-eared bat. Approximately 218 acres (88 hectares) of summer
roosting habitat would be impacted under Alternative 1. Additionally, based on the presence of mine
openings and an Indiana bat, the USFWS requested additional studies be conducted at the Payne Gap site
to further assess impacts if the proposed action were to be implemented at the site. These studies would
include conducting spring or fall portal surveys on all suitable mine openings that may be either directly or
indirectly impacted by the proposed action. Based on the Phase I survey and coordination with the
USFWS, the Bureau determined Alternative 1 may affect, is likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat, gray
bat, and northern long-eared bat and both their summer roosting habitat and winter hibernaculum. Adverse
4-36

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

effects to these bat species from nighttime light pollution and glare may also occur. Indirect impacts may
come from the noise from the proposed outdoor firing range.
It is not anticipated that the Kentucky arrow darter would be impacted by implementation of the proposed
action at the Payne Gap site. The streams within the project site are small channels and do not contain
riffle pool complexes. Additionally, conductivity measurements were taken within streams on the project
site in June 2015. Conductivity measurements ranged from 562 microseconds (µS) to 1,970 µS. Studies
have demonstrated that Kentucky arrow darters are not likely to be present when conductivity levels
exceed approximately 250 µS (USFWS 2010). Therefore, no significant impacts to Kentucky arrow darter
are anticipated under Alternative 1.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the Payne Gap site would not be developed and there would be no
impacts to vegetation, wildlife, or threatened and endangered species.
Mitigation
Mitigation measures for construction impacts to vegetation and wildlife would include minimizing
disturbance of existing vegetation to the greatest extent possible. An open area with a direct line of site is
required for the areas surrounding the USP and FPC; however, upon completion of construction, disturbed
areas would be re-vegetated with native, non-invasive plants to the maximum extent possible while
maintaining the Bureau’s site requirements.
The Bureau met with the USFWS on May 20, 2015 to discuss the Payne Gap site and potential additional
studies and mitigation. If the site were to be developed, additional studies of winter hibernaculum would
be required to further assess impacts and potential mitigation. The USFWS currently has a Conservation
Memorandum of Agreement (CMOA) for impacts to summer habitat of 100 acres (40 hectares) or less.
Impacts to summer habitat under Alternative 1, which would be greater than 100 acres, would not be
covered under the CMOA; therefore, formal Section 7 consultation with the USFWS would be required for
development of the Payne Gap site. Additional studies of summer and winter habitat and the preparation of
a biological assessment addressing potential impacts to both summer roosting habitat and winter
hibernacula would also be required. The USFWS would then issue a biological opinion on the findings of
the biological assessment. Based on discussions with the USFWS, because Alternative 1 is not the
preferred alternative and development of the Payne Gap site is not anticipated, no additional studies or
coordination are required at this time (Appendix A, Agency Coordination). Should this change in the
future, the Bureau would be required to notify the USFWS, conduct any required studies, and initiate
formal Section 7 consultation, if necessary, prior to any development of the site.
The Bureau has conducted prior impact assessments for the installation of non-lethal/lethal fences,
especially for potential impacts to avian and small mammal species (Bureau 2009). These prior
assessments have found less than significant adverse impacts; consequently, less than significant impacts
are anticipated with the non-lethal/lethal fence to be installed as part of this proposed action. However,
following activation of the non-lethal/lethal fence, the Bureau would monitor the fence line to determine if
wildlife, particularly avian species, is being adversely affected. The Bureau would collect data regarding
these occurrences including identification of species and photographs. The data would be used to
document and analyze emerging trends. If adverse effects were identified, the Bureau would contact the
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-37

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

USFWS and appropriate state wildlife agencies to determine if changes to the operation of the fence are
warranted.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE
Affected Environment
4.12.1.1

Hazardous Materials

The Payne Gap site is located in a relatively undeveloped area. No hazardous materials are known to be in
storage or in use in this area. According to the USEPA “Cleanups In My Community” mapping tool, there
are no Brownfield, Superfund, or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action
sites in the vicinity of the Payne Gap site. No sites in the town of Payne Gap were listed in the USEPA’s
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), or RCRA databases. No
hazardous materials or evidence of their presence (i.e., stressed vegetation, stained soils, drums) on the site
were observed during site visits conducted by Cardno in 2011, 2013, and 2014.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed on the Payne Gap site in July 2015. The
Environmental Site Assessment was conducted in accordance with the American Society for Materials and
Testing International Designation: E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E1527-13). The goal of the assessment was to
identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) on the Payne Gap site. An REC is defined in
ASTM E1527-13 as “the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products
in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to
the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.”
An REC includes hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with
laws. De minimis conditions are not RECs, generally do not present a threat to human health or the
environment, and generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of
appropriate governmental agencies. Structures on the Payne Gap site were also assessed for the potential
presence of asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, and radon, although no samples were collected
during the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment.
As part of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, federal, state, and local databases were searched to
meet, at a minimum, the government records search requirements of ASTM E1527-13. Only one of the
numerous databases searched, the KY SPILLS database, contained information relevant to the Payne Gap
site. The KY SPILLS database is a listing of spill and/or release related incidents. One incident, recorded
in 2006, documents the reporting of fugitive emissions of dust from coal truck traffic in an area off of U.S.
Route 119 halfway between Jenkins and Whitesburg in Bill Lewis Hollow. Based on the nature and
location of the reported release, approximately 2 miles the east of the Payne Gap site, it is not considered
to pose a threat of contaminating to the site.
Visual inspections of the site and the adjoining properties (to the extent adjoining properties were
accessible) were conducted to identify evidence of potential environmental contamination, such as:
•

stained surface soils or distressed vegetation;

•

disturbed surface soils or reclaimed areas;

•

discarded containers, residues, and pools of liquid;

•

electrical equipment such as transformers and capacitors;

4-38

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

•

aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (USTs), piping, sumps, or other
types of impoundment structures;

•

abandoned structures and associated utilities; and

•

drainage structures and direction of stormwater runoff on the subject parcels and adjacent areas.

No RECs or hazardous materials were observed on the site. Appendix G contains the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment for the Payne Gap site.
4.12.1.2

Hazardous Wastes

No hazardous wastes are known to be stored on the Payne Gap site or generated in this area. According to
the USEPA “Cleanups In My Community” mapping tool, there are no Brownfield, Superfund, or RCRA
Corrective Action sites in the vicinity of the Payne Gap site. No sites in the town of Payne Gap were listed
in the USEPA’s TSCA, TRI, or RCRA databases. No hazardous wastes or evidence of their presence (i.e.,
stressed vegetation, stained soils, drums, batteries) on the site and no evidence of acid mine drainage was
observed during site visits conducted by Cardno in 2011, 2013, and 2014. No slurry ponds or coal mine
waste facilities are located on or near the Payne Gap site (USEPA 2015a, USEPA 2015b, and Sierra Club
2015).
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment database search did not identify any hazardous waste sites or
generators at or near the Payne Gap site. In addition, no hazardous wastes were observed on the site during
the site inspections conducted in July 2015.
Coal mining occurs in Letcher County; however, no active mining sites are located in the vicinity of the
proposed Payne Gap site. Investigations using the Coal Impoundment Location and Information System
(National Technology Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit University 2009) indicate that there are no active
coal mines, coal processing facilities, or waste disposal sites on the Payne Gap site or within a 1-mile
radius.
Maps of active mines in Kentucky prepared by the Kentucky Department of Energy Development and
Independence and the Kentucky Geological Survey were reviewed (KGS 2015) and cross referenced with
maps prepared by the Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System to determine their current status. No
currently active mines were found within a 1-mile radius of the proposed site. Therefore, coal mining in
the area is not adversely affecting the environment of the site.
4.12.1.3

Toxic Substances

During site inspections, remnants of a 75 foot by 35 foot warehouse type structure were observed. The
structure was of concrete block construction with a concrete slab-on-grade floor and steel roof trusses.
Based on review of historic aerial photos, the structure appears to have been constructed in the late 1990s.
Therefore, it would not contain hazardous building materials, such as asbestos-containing material or leadbased paint. No toxic substances were observed on the site.
Radon is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless, radioactive gas produced by the decay of uranium in
rock and soil. Radon is a known carcinogen, responsible for increasing the risk of lung cancer when
inhaled. Electrically charged radon atoms can attach to indoor air dust particles. Subsequently these dust
particles may be inhaled and adhere to the lining of the lungs. The deposited atoms decay by emitting
radiation that has the potential to cause cellular damage. Typically outside air contains very low levels of
radon (USEPA 2015c), but tends to accumulate in enclosed indoor spaces. When present, radon gas would
4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-39

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

typically concentrate in relatively airtight buildings with little outside air exchange. The USEPA classifies
Letcher County as having a moderate potential for radon intrusion (Zone 2). Zone 2 counties have a
predicted average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). The USEPA
action level for radon requiring treatment is 4 pCi/L.
Environmental Consequences
4.12.2.1

Hazardous Materials

Construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials. The majority of the hazardous
materials expected to be used are common to construction and include diesel fuel, gasoline, and propane to
fuel the construction equipment; hydraulic fluids, oils, and lubricants; and batteries. The transport and use
of hazardous materials would have the potential to result in accidental spills that could adversely impact
soil and groundwater on and adjacent to the construction site or along transportation routes. Hazardous
materials associated with construction activities would be delivered and stored in a manner that would
prevent these materials from leaking, spilling, and potentially polluting soils or groundwater, and in
accordance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental and public and occupational health and
safety regulations. With the implementation of appropriate handling and management procedures,
hazardous materials used during construction would have no significant impacts to the environment.
4.12.2.2

Hazardous Wastes

Hazardous waste would be generated during construction activities and would include but not be limited to
empty containers, spent solvents, waste oil, spill cleanup materials (if used), and lead-acid batteries from
construction equipment. Construction contractors would be responsible for safely removing these
construction-generated wastes from the construction site and for arranging for recycling or disposal in
accordance with applicable regulations. The total monthly generation of hazardous waste during
construction is anticipated to be less than 100 kilograms during a calendar month. The construction
contractor would be responsible for determining their regulatory status regarding hazardous waste
generation during construction, and obtaining and maintaining compliance in accordance with federal and
state laws. Hazardous wastes associated with construction activities would be handled and stored in a
manner that would minimize human exposure to these materials and prevent these materials from polluting
soils or groundwater, and in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental and human
health and safety regulations. Adherence to these policies, procedures, and regulations would minimize the
potential impacts from exposure and accidental releases during construction. In the event of an accidental
release, contaminated media would be treated on-site or would be promptly removed and disposed of in
accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. With the implementation of appropriate handling
and management procedures, hazardous wastes generated during construction would have no significant
impacts to the environment.
Operation of the USP and FPC would require the use of small amounts of hazardous materials such as
petroleum, oils, and lubricants for lawn maintenance equipment, pesticides, and paints. These materials
would be acquired as needed and large volumes would not be stored on site. Those volumes that are stored
on site would be stored, used, and disposed in accordance with applicable regulations and would have no
significant impacts on the environment.
The outdoor firing range at the proposed USP and FPC would be used an average of once a month for
small arms training and maintenance, and would include the use of lead bullets. The range would be
4-40

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

designed according to Bureau Technical Design Guidelines, which require incorporating safety baffles,
berms, and backstops to contain bullets to a designated area. Impoundments, traps, and other structures
would catch lead particles. The design of the firing range would also include stormwater systems to gather
runoff and allow infiltration within the range bermed area. This aids in preventing contamination outside
of the range itself. To ensure this feature continues to work, regular range maintenance would include
adding more soil to the berm and ensuring it is seeded with grass. If there is cause, the berm soil would be
sifted to remove the lead. The lead would then be recycled and the soil replaced on the range berm. Bureau
institutions with an active firing range use the web-based software TRI-Me to report releases of lead to
USEPA. Therefore, firing range operations would have no significant impacts to the environment.
4.12.2.3

Toxic Substances

Under Alternative 1, facilities intended for human occupancy would be designed to prevent occupant
exposures to radon above the USEPA action level of 4 pCi/L. Therefore, there would not be adverse
impacts associated with radon under Alternative 1.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the Payne Gap site would not be developed and there would be no
impacts associated with hazardous materials and waste.
Mitigation
Alternative 1 would have no significant impacts to hazardous materials and wastes; therefore, no
mitigation is required.

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

4-41

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

4-42

4.0 Alternative 1 – Payne Gap
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

5.0

ALTERNATIVE 2 – ROXANA
LAND USE AND ZONING
Affected Environment

Land use associated with the proposed location of Alternative 2 primarily consists of forest and reclaimed
land from previous surface mining. Other on-site land uses include an agricultural field, a residential area,
oil and gas wells, and a small model airplane airstrip. Land use surrounding the site is also primarily
forested, with small single-family residences in the area. There are also several state parks and nature
preserves within the area. They include Bad Branch Falls State Nature Preserve, Kingdom Come State
Park, Lilley Cornett Woods, and Pine Mountain Wildlife Management Area. Coal mining once occurred
throughout the area, but currently there are five active coal mining operations located between 1 and 6
miles from the Roxana site (Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System 2008). There are no zoning
ordinances or land use classifications identified for this area (DePriest 2013). Land use associated with
the Roxana site is depicted in Figure 5-1.
Environmental Consequences
5.1.2.1

Construction

Changes to land use on the 700-acre (283-hectare) Roxana site would occur from construction of a USP
and FPC. Approximately 118 acres (48 hectares) of the site would be converted from a primarily forested
area to a government institution consisting of several facilities, parking lots, and roads. Additionally, the
model airplane strip would be removed. The oil and gas wells would be plugged and abandoned; these
impacts are further discussed in Section 5.8, Infrastructure and Utilities. A buffer area would remain
around the USP and FPC, separating the federal correctional facility from the adjacent properties. The
buffer area would be compatible with the adjacent land uses. Due to the lack of zoning ordinances and
land use classifications, construction of the proposed USP and FPC would not result in incompatible land
uses from a regulatory perspective.
5.1.2.2

Operations

There would be no impacts to adjacent land uses from operation of the USP and FPC, as the federal
correctional facility would be separated from adjacent properties by a buffer area. The buffer area would
be compatible with adjacent land uses.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.1.3.
Mitigation
Federal agencies are not subject to local/regional zoning or land use development regulations. However,
the Bureau would take the following measures to help minimize potential adverse impacts to surrounding
land uses:
•
•

provide an open space and vegetative buffer between the USP and FPC to maintain visual
compatibility with surrounding properties
design and locate the facilities to reduce the visual presence of the facility from neighboring
properties

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 5-1. Roxana Land Use
5-2

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS
Affected Environment
The topography at the Roxana site has been significantly impacted by mountaintop removal coal mining.
A plateau resulting from surface mining has replaced a mountain ridge in the central portion of the site.
This change has not been accounted for on USGS topographic maps; however, the highest point and
lowest points of the site remain unchanged. The highest elevation is located in the southeastern portion of
the site at an elevation of approximately 1,850 feet AMSL. The lowest elevation on site is approximately
1,035 feet AMSL, located in the northwestern portion of the site adjacent to the North Fork of the
Kentucky River.
The Roxana site is underlain by the Breathitt Group, which comprises the Pikeville Formation and the
Hyden Formation. The Roxana site is also underlain by the Four Corners Formation. The geology
underlying the Roxana site is primarily the Hyden Formation (KGS 2013).
The three most common soils on the Roxana site are the Cloverlick-Kimper-Highsplint complex, (30 to
65 percent slopes), the Kaymine, Fairpoint and Fiveblock soils map unit (2 to 70 percent slopes), and the
Shelocta-Highsplint (30 to 65 percent slopes). To a lesser degree the following soils are also on the site:
Allegheny Loam (2 to 25 percent slopes), Dekalb-Gilpin-Rayne complex (25 to 65 percent slopes),
Fiveblock and Kaymine soils (0 to 30 percent slopes), Gilpin-Shelocta complex (12 to 25 percent),
Grigsby sandy loam (occasionally flooded), Grigsby-Urban land complex (0 to 6 percent slopes), Urban
land-Udorthents complex (0 to 15 percent slopes), and Urban land-Udorthents-Grigsby complex (0 to
6 percent slopes) (NRCS 2013).
The Roxana site contains a small area of soils classified as farmland of statewide importance (NRCS
2013). The soil is Allegheny Loam and is located in the floodplain of the North Fork of the Kentucky
River in the northernmost portion of the site. None of the soils associated with the Roxana site are listed
as hydric by NRCS.
Environmental Consequences
5.2.2.1

Construction

Development of the site would require significant excavation and fill activities to create a level pad for
construction of the facilities and access roads. A 2:1 fill slope and a 1:1 cut slope were used in the
estimate of fill and excavation quantities adjacent to the pads and roads to transition to the original
topography at the Roxana site. More detail on the earthwork calculations can be found in Appendix B,
Excavation and Grading Calculations. As identified in Table 2-2, Estimated Site Preparation Quantities
for Alternative 2 – Roxana, excavation activities (cut) would include 9,204,340 cubic yards (7,037,223
cubic meters) of spoil material and 953,246 cubic yards (728,809 cubic meters) of rock. The excavated
soil and rock would be compacted to create a structural fill for the building pads and in the valleys. The
amount of structural fill was estimated to be 9,402,582 cubic yards (7,188,790 cubic meters). All
excavated materials would be used on-site for structural fill. The maximum cut (excavation) at Roxana
would be approximately 20 meters and the maximum fill would be approximately 65 meters. Removal of
bedrock would require blasting activities. Impacts resulting from the cut and fill activities would include
loss of productive soil, erosion, and destabilization of slopes. As a result of the excavation and fill
activities, the topography of the site would change at the maximum cut from 465 meters to 445 meters
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

MSL in the main building area and at the maximum fill from 370 meters to 445 meters MSL in the firing
range area.
No construction would occur in the area of soils classified as farmland of statewide importance; therefore,
farmland soils would not be impacted and no coordination with NRCS would be required.
5.2.2.2

Operations

No further impacts to topography, geology or soils are anticipated from the operation of the USP and
FPC.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.2.3.
Mitigation
The Bureau would prepare a soil erosion and sediment control plan and submit it to the Kentucky
Division of Water for approval prior to construction. The erosion and sediment control plan would outline
the measures and BMPs to be used for controlling on-site erosion and sedimentation during construction.
BMPs could include placement of silt fencing adjacent to surface waters and wetlands to prevent the
introduction of sediment; the use of hay bales to minimize the spread of sediment off the construction
site; stabilization of steep slopes; use of tree clearing plans; and stormwater control plans to manage
stormwater runoff and keep it on-site during construction. Additionally, construction of the USP, FPC,
and ancillary facilities could be phased to occur at different times, resulting in the minimization of
disturbed soil by clearing only the area necessary for the current phase of construction. Re-vegetation of
disturbed areas following the completion of construction would also occur to minimize the erosion of
exposed soil.

SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Affected Environment
5.3.1.1

Population

The 2013 population of Letcher County was 24,025. Letcher County’s population decreased by
approximately 3 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Table 5-1). The City of Whitesburg grew by
approximately 34 percent from 2000 to 2010 and the City of Jenkins population decreased by 3 percent
during the same time period. The decrease in population is likely the result of people who leave the area
for better education and employment opportunities (KRADD 2013). This trend is anticipated to continue
within the county with the population decreasing by an additional 7 percent by the year 2020.

5-4

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 5-1. Study Area Population Trends, 2000–2010
Geographic Area

2000

2010

Percent
Change
2000–2010

Whitesburg, Kentucky

1,598

2,139

33.85

---

---

Jenkins, Kentucky

2,273

2,203

-3.08

---

---

Letcher County, Kentucky

25,275

24,519

-2.99

22,655

-6.88

4,041,769

4,339,357

7.36

4,699,880

8.3

Kentucky

2020 Projected
Population*

Projected Percent
Change 2010–2020

Note: *2020 Projections only available for county and state.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, U.S. Census Bureau 2010, Proximity One 2014.

5.3.1.2

Employment and Income

Letcher County’s 2013 employed civilian labor force was 7,103, out of a total civilian labor force of
8,201. Employment by industry in Letcher County is depicted in Table 5-2. The industries that employ
the greatest number of people in Letcher County include educational services, and health care and social
assistance (33.4 percent); agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining (13.0 percent); and retail
trade (12.7 percent). In Kentucky, the largest industry employers are educational services, and health care
and social assistance (24.5 percent); manufacturing (13.7 percent); and retail trade (11.8 percent)
(U.S. Census Bureau 2014a).
Letcher County is part of the largest coal producing area in eastern Kentucky. While study area jobs in the
coal mining industry have been declining, positions in the health care, retail, and the secondary wood
industries have increased. However, these jobs typically pay less than coal mining jobs. The study area is
part of a region characterized by high unemployment and poverty rates (KRADD 2013).

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 5-2. Study Area Employment, 2013
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting,
and mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and warehousing, and
utilities
Information
Finance and insurance, and real estate and
rental/leasing
Professional, scientific, management, and
administrative and waste management
services
Educational services, health care and
social assistance
Arts, entertainment, recreation,
accommodation, and food services
Other services, except public
administration
Public administration
Total

Letcher County, Kentucky
Number
Percent
Employed
Employed

Kentucky
Number
Percent
Employed
Employed

922

13.0

52,348

2.8

442
213
209
904

6.2
3.0
2.9
12.7

111,646
255,938
49,171
219,721

6.0
13.7
2.6
11.8

360

5.1

112,005

6.0

98

1.4

29,217

1.6

199

2.8

102,380

5.5

413

5.8

144,589

7.8

2,369

33.4

456,293

24.5

468

6.6

159,679

8.6

252

3.5

87,228

4.7

254
7,103

3.6

85,390
1,865,605

4.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014a.

While unemployment rates in Kentucky have decreased from a peak of 10.3 percent in 2009 to 6.5
percent in 2014, the unemployment rate in Letcher County increased dramatically from 10.6 percent in
2009 to 17.3 percent in 2013 (Table 5-3). The preliminary 2014 unemployment rate for Letcher County
has decreased to 11.5 percent. The comparable rate for the U.S. was 6.3 percent (KYLMI 2014).
Unemployment rates in the study area are higher than the comparable rates for the state and the nation.
Along with the “displaced worker,” the study area has a higher percentage of “discouraged” workers who
no longer actively seek employment and are, therefore, not included in the official unemployment
statistics. Therefore, the official unemployment rate in the study area is deceptively lower than actual
unemployment (KRADD 2013).
Table 5-3. Study Area Percent Unemployment Rates

Jurisdiction
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

2007
7.7
5.6

2008
7.1
6.6

2009
10.6
10.3

2010
11.4
10.2

Notes: Unemployment rates are not seasonally adjusted. aAugust 2014, preliminary.
Source: KYLMI 2014.

2011
10.3
9.5

2012
13.8
8.3

2013
17.3
8.3

2014a
11.5
6.5

Total personal income includes net earnings by place of residence; dividends, interest, and rent received;
and benefits paid by federal, state, and local governments and businesses. A larger portion of personal
income in Letcher County comes from government and business benefits than for Kentucky and the U.S
(U.S. Department of Commerce 2014).
Total personal income in Letcher County decreased by almost 2 percent from 2010 to 2012, while over
the same period, personal income increased by approximately 10 percent in Kentucky (Table 5-4).
5-6

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Between 2010 and 2012, per capita income increased in Letcher County by less than 1 percent while per
capita income in Kentucky increased by 8 percent. The national per capita income was $43,735
(U.S. Department of Commerce 2014).
Table 5-4. Study Area Personal and Per Capita Income
Jurisdiction
Letcher County,
Kentucky
Kentucky

2010 Personal
Income (000)a

2012 Personal
Income (000)a

Percent
Change
2010–2012

2010 Per
Capita
Income

2012 Per
Capita
Income

Percent
Change
2010–2012

$686,680

$674,369

-1.8

$27,948

$28,155

0.7

$143,210,961

$157,043,042

9.7

$32,947

$35,643

8.2

Notes: Not adjusted for inflation.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 2014.

5.3.1.3

Housing

There were 11,519 housing units in Letcher County in 2013, with a total vacancy rate of approximately
19 percent (Table 5-5). The vacancy rate for owner-occupied units was 0.3 percent and the vacancy rate
for rental units was 1.9 percent. The comparable vacancy rates in Kentucky were higher, at 12.4 percent,
2.1 percent, and 6.7 percent respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2014b).
Table 5-5. Study Area Housing Units, 2013
Geographic Area
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014b.

5.3.1.4

Vacant
Housing Units Housing Units
11,519
2,155
1,933,019
239,620

Percent
Vacant
18.7
12.4

Homeowner
Vacancy Rate
0.3
2.1

Rental
Vacancy Rate
1.9
6.7

Environmental Justice

For the purpose of this evaluation, minority refers to people who identified themselves in the census as
Black or African American, Asian, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, American Indian or Alaskan Native,
other non-White races, or as being of Hispanic or Latino origin. Persons of Hispanic and Latino origin
may be of any race (CEQ 1997). The CEQ identifies these groups as minority populations when either (1)
the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage
in the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general
population or the geographic region of comparison (most often the state in which the affected area is
part). The geographical unit for comparison in this analysis is Kentucky.
U.S. Census Bureau data on the racial and ethnic composition of the study area in 2013 are summarized in
Table 5-6. Overall, the majority of the study area is white. Letcher County has a smaller percentage of
minority and Hispanic populations than Kentucky.

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-7

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 5-6. Study Area Percent Race and Ethnicity, 2013
Jurisdiction
Whitesburg, Kentucky
Jenkins, Kentucky
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

White
97.1
98.4
98.3
87.8

Black/African
American
1.5
0.5
0.2
7.9

American
Indian/Alaska
Native
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2

Asian
0.6
0.0
0.6
1.2

Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Hispanic
or Latino
Origina
1.3
0.9
0.7
3.2

Notes: Data presented reflects most reported race and ethnicity categories; percentages may not add to 100 percent due to
rounding. *Hispanic origin may be of any race.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014c.

Table 5-7 presents data on low-income families and individuals in the study area. The percentages of
low-income families and individuals in Letcher County with incomes below poverty level (based on
family size and composition) are greater than for Kentucky. In the study area, the City of Jenkins has the
highest percentages of families and individuals with incomes below the poverty level.
Table 5-7. Study Area Percent Below Poverty Level, 2013

Jurisdiction
Whitesburg, Kentucky
Jenkins, Kentucky
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014a.

5.3.1.5

Families Below Poverty Level
5.5
27.6
20.0
14.6

Individuals Below Poverty Level
14.2
32.1
24.2
19.1

Protection of Children

The percentage of children under the age of 18 is lower in Whitesburg, Jenkins, and Letcher County than
for Kentucky (Table 5-8).
Table 5-8. Study Area Percent Under the Age of 18, 2013

Jurisdiction
Whitesburg, Kentucky
Jenkins, Kentucky
Letcher County, Kentucky
Kentucky

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014c.

<18
16.4
20.8
22.3
23.3

Environmental Consequences
5.3.2.1

Population

Approximately 300 new employees would be needed to operate the proposed USP and FPC. It is
anticipated that some of these employees would be existing Bureau employees who would relocate to the
area and the rest would be hired locally. Under a maximum case scenario, all 300 new personnel are
assumed to move to the study area.
The Bureau personnel would likely be accompanied by their families or other household members. The
U.S. Census Bureau has determined that the average household size for the U.S., which is assumed to be
similar to the average household size of transfer employees, is 2.58 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Under
this assumption, approximately 774 people would be added to the study area population. This would
represent 3.2 percent of the Letcher County 2013 population. This gain would help to offset some of the

5-8

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

recent and projected population losses in Letcher County. Alternative 2 would result in a minor beneficial
impact to the study area’s short- and long-term population trends.
5.3.2.2

Employment and Income

The increase of 300 full-time positions would represent approximately 4 percent of the Letcher County
2013 civilian labor force. Study area personal income would also increase as a result of job growth. Some
of the increased wage earnings would be paid to taxes, and some would be saved and invested, but most
would be spent on consumer goods and services in the study area.
This spending would, in turn, “ripple” through the economy, generating additional indirect jobs and
income and benefitting the study area economy. Given the rate of unemployment in the study area
(11.5 percent), it would be expected that many of these indirect positions would be filled by unemployed
local residents. In addition, inmates’ family members would be expected to visit, boosting visitor
spending in hotels/motels and restaurants in the study area. No population in-migration to the study area
would be expected as a result of indirect job growth.
The increase in construction spending would also generate direct construction jobs and indirect jobs,
typically in food services and retail trade. Additional construction workers may move into the study area
in response to the direct construction jobs, but these workers would most likely leave the area for other
opportunities when the construction project nears completion. Further, given the study area
unemployment rate, it would be expected that most of the indirect positions would be filled by
unemployed study area workers. While there may be some population in-migration to the study area as a
result of construction spending, it would not be expected to significantly affect population trends.
Alternative 2 would result in beneficial employment and income impacts in the study area.
While the purchase of land by the Bureau for Alternative 2 would reduce property tax revenues,
additional taxes would accrue to federal, state, and local governments as a result of the increase in
payrolls, and operational and construction spending. It is anticipated that, on balance, the fiscal/economic
impacts would be beneficial and there would be no significant adverse fiscal/economic impacts.
5.3.2.3

Housing

Alternative 2 would result in an increase of 300 full-time positions in the study area. Under a conservative
scenario, all these personnel would seek housing in Letcher County at the same time. This would
represent about 2.6 percent of Letcher County’s total housing units and approximately 14 percent of the
vacant units. Some additional housing may be developed by the private market to support USP and FPC
employees who choose to live in Letcher County. However, not all new personnel would live in Letcher
County and the increase in personnel would occur over the construction period before the USP and FPC
become operational, reducing any potential negative impacts to the study area’s housing market.
5.3.2.4

Environmental Justice

Based on the assessment of socioeconomic and potential environmental impacts for the proposed Roxana
facility, beneficial employment and income impacts, as well as minor beneficial impacts to population in
the surrounding communities would be expected as a result of Alternative 2. There are no adverse
environmental impacts that would have disproportionately high or adverse environmental effects on
minority or low-income populations. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in significant adverse
impacts to environmental justice communities.
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-9

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

5.3.2.5

Protection of Children

There are no adverse environmental impacts that would result in disproportionate health or safety risks to
children. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in significant adverse impacts to the health or safety of
children.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.3.3.
Mitigation
No adverse impacts to socioeconomics, environmental justice populations, or children would be expected;
therefore, no mitigation would be warranted.

COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Affected Environment
5.4.1.1

Police

Law enforcement servicing the area around and including the Roxana site includes the Whitesburg Police
Department, Letcher County Sheriff, and Kentucky State Police. The Whitesburg Police Department is
comprised of 6 police officers, 1 chief of police, 1 second in command, and 1 secretary. They are
currently short staffed one police officer. The department has eight squad cars and provides 24-hour
coverage (Whitesburg Police Department 2013).
The Letcher County Sheriff’s office is comprised of 13 full-time employees including 10 deputies and 3
dispatchers. The office operates 10 squad cars and is headquartered in Whitesburg. The office provides
24-hour coverage, seven days a week (Letcher County Sheriff 2013).
The Kentucky State Police Post 13 operates out of Hazard, and covers five counties, including Letcher
County. The Hazard Post currently has 39 state troopers, 18 dispatchers, 3 clerks, 1 custodian, 1 criminal
analyst, and 1 arson specialist. They operate 39 squad cars, and have 8 to 10 spare squad cars available in
the event one is needed (Kentucky State Police 2013).
5.4.1.2

Fire

Fire departments that provide emergency services for the Roxana area include Letcher County Fire and
Rescue, Whitesburg Fire and Rescue, and the Kings Creek Volunteer Fire Department. The Letcher
County Fire and Rescue provide fire response to the area of the Roxana site. Letcher County Fire and
Rescue is comprised of 32 firefighters (20 paid and 12 volunteer). Fifteen of the personnel are EMTs.
Letcher County Fire and Rescue has stations in Jeremiah, Blackey, and Hallie, and services the western
portion of Letcher County. Fire rescue equipment includes five ambulances, two tanker trucks, and three
engines (Letcher County Fire and Rescue 2013).
Whitesburg Fire and Rescue consists of 30 firefighters: 25 volunteer and 5 paid. Five of the firefighters
are EMTs. The station has five engines and a boom truck with a snorkel. Whitesburg Fire and Rescue has
mutual aid agreements with the rest of Letcher County and is able to assist with emergencies throughout
the county if dispatched (Whitesburg Fire and Rescue 2013).
The Kings Creek Volunteer Fire Department is located on KY 60 approximately 1.5 miles from the
Roxana site. The fire department has 23 volunteers, 1 pumper truck, and 2 large tanker trucks. The Kings
5-10

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Creek Volunteer Fire Department has relationships with other local volunteer fire departments and
through a local paging system, can request assistance from these departments (Kings Creek Volunteer
Fire Department 2015).
5.4.1.3

Health Care

Appalachian Regional Healthcare (ARH) serves over 350,000 residents in eastern Kentucky and southern
West Virginia. Their operations in Letcher County, Kentucky include the Whitesburg ARH Hospital,
ARH Whitesburg Clinic, Jenkins ARH Family Care Center, Neon ARH Family Care Center, Whitesburg
ARH Surgical Clinic, ARH Cardiology Associates-Whitesburg, and Whitesburg ARH Home Health
Agency. Whitesburg ARH completed an $11 million renovation project in 2011 that included a 15,000
square foot addition to the facility that houses surgical, obstetric, and newborn patients. Renovations to
the existing space included a complete remodel of the third floor to include six Intensive Care Unit beds
and 20 private patient rooms. Whitesburg ARH Hospital provides 24-hour emergency service for both
adult and pediatric patients and has an on-site heliport for receiving and transferring patients. Whitesburg
ARH is an acute care hospital that covers internal medicine, family practice, pediatrics, general surgery,
advanced laparoscopic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, cardiology, pulmonology, radiology and
emergency services (ARH 2014).
Mountain Comprehensive Health Corporation is one of the largest rural health centers in Kentucky. Its
Whitesburg facility is the largest clinic, and offers dental, family and internal medicine, pediatrics,
cardiology, pulmonology, and obstetrics and gynecological services, as well as a rehabilitation program.
Mountain Comprehensive Health Corporation also has a full service laboratory (Mountain
Comprehensive Health Corporation 2015).
5.4.1.4

Schools

The schools in Letcher County are administered by the Letcher County School District. There are five
elementary schools, three middle schools, and one high school. Table 5-9 identifies the names of the
schools, the grades they serve, the number of students enrolled for the 2014–2015 school year, and the
actual capacity of each school.
Table 5-9. Letcher County Schools Enrollment and Capacity for 2014–2015

School
Arlie Boggs Elementary
Cowan Elementary
Fleming Neon Middle School
Letcher County Elementary
Letcher County Middle School
Letcher County Central High School
West Whitesburg Elementary School
Whitesburg Middle School
Martha Jane Potter Elementary
Source: Wagoner 2014.

Grades
K-8
K-8
6-8
K-5
6-8
9-12
K-5
6-8
K-5

Number of Students
127
423
202
372
158
929
392
170
438

Capacity
248
440
352
418
225
1,033
440
225
425

Environmental Consequences
5.4.2.1

Police

The vast majority of inmate incidents that arise at USPs, including those that could arise at the proposed
USP at Roxana, would be addressed internally through the Bureau’s disciplinary process. However,
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-11

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

should a law enforcement emergency arise at the proposed USP for which outside law enforcement
assistance is needed, the Letcher County Sheriff and Kentucky State Police have advised that they would
be able to provide such assistance if needed. Both these agencies, respectively, have stated that they
would be willing to discuss development of an MOU with the Bureau to provide these services. Both of
these law enforcement agencies also advised that the proposed facility would not result in impacts to their
services or require the hiring of additional staff. A Whitesburg city official indicated that the Whitesburg
Police Department could also assist if requested, although doing so might have some impact on its
operations and might require additional equipment (refer to communication logs in Appendix A, Agency
Coordination). Therefore, while there is potential for impacts to the Whitesburg Police Department if
requested to respond to a law enforcement emergency at the proposed USP, given that other state and
local law enforcement agencies would be available to respond, less than significant impacts to law
enforcement resources are expected under Alternative 2.
5.4.2.2

Fire

The proposed USP and FPC would have designated Bureau staff and on-site fire-fighting equipment and
resources capable of responding to and handling most fires or fire-related emergencies that might occur.
However, to the extent that limited and infrequent response by outside fire or emergency resources would
be needed, the local emergency service providers have indicated they would be able to provide assistance
in the event of an emergency that was beyond the capabilities of Bureau staff. These providers have
indicated interest in discussing the development of an MOU with the Bureau to provide these services.
They have also indicated that providing such services, if requested, would not be expected to result in
impacts to their services or require the hiring of additional staff (refer to communication logs Appendix
A, Agency Coordination). Therefore, Alternative 2 would not have significant impacts to local fire and
emergency services.
5.4.2.3

Health Care

Most health care needs or emergencies that would arise at the proposed USP and FPC would be handled
by Bureau medical staff. However, health care facilities are located near the Roxana site and would be
able to accommodate inmates at the proposed USP and FPC if needed. Discussions with ARH indicate
they have staff familiar with accommodating inmates and the necessary security requirements that would
need to be implemented to bring an inmate into an ARH facility. ARH indicated this would not be a
problem and they would be able to accommodate the facility if an inmate would require care outside of
the USP or FPC. ARH also indicated they would be willing to work with the Bureau to develop an MOU
(Sparkman 2014). Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to health care services under Alternative
2.
5.4.2.4

Schools

Approximately 300 new employees would be needed to operate the proposed USP and FPC. It is
anticipated that some of these employees would be existing Bureau employees that would relocate to the
area. Under a maximum case scenario, it is assumed that Bureau employees relocating to operate the
facility would reside within the immediate area (Whitesburg, Jenkins, or Letcher County). With the
exception of Martha Jane Potter Elementary school, all the schools within Letcher County School District
have sufficient capacity to accept new students.

5-12

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.4.3.
Mitigation
With the exception of the potential for an adverse impact to the Whitesburg Police Department, no
impacts to community facilities and services would occur; therefore, no mitigation would be warranted.
With respect to the Whitesburg Police Department, the Bureau would discuss the development of an
MOU with the chief of police and the Mayor of Whitesburg and determine the department’s status and
what steps may be taken to off-set those impacts.

TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Affected Environment
The Roxana site is located approximately 7.5 miles west of Whitesburg, and would be constructed to the
south of KY 588 and to the west of KY 160. Proximate to the proposed correctional facility, KY 588 is a
two-lane roadway designated as a Class II highway. Class II highways have lower speed collector roads
and are primarily designed to provide access. KY 160 is classified as a rural major collector (KYTC
2014a). In terms truck weight, both KY 588 and KY 160 are Class “A” roadways that can accommodate
trucks having a gross vehicle weight of up to 44,000 pounds (KYTC 2014c; KYTC 2015). Potential
access points include a connection to the north to KY 588, a connection to the east to KY 160, and/or a
connection to the west to an existing roadway that traverses north/south between KY 588 and Lilly
Cornett Branch Road.
A traffic impact study (Appendix F) was conducted for the proposed action in April 2015. Based on the
analysis in the traffic impact study, the current Annual Average Daily Traffic for KY 160 is 550 per day,
and for KY 588 it is 330 per day (Parsons 2015). KY 588 a.m. and p.m. peak periods both function at an
LOS A.
Environmental Consequences
The transportation network associated with the Roxana site is primarily two-lane unstriped rural
roadways. The infrastructure would not be able to support construction equipment and vehicles traveling
to the site.
As defined by KYTC, rural minor collectors “provide service to…smaller communities, link locally
important traffic generators to larger towns, and collect traffic from local roads. They should be spaced at
intervals consistent with population density to bring all developed areas within a reasonable distance of a
collector road” (KYTC 2014a).
Per KYTC, rural major collectors “provide service to county seats, larger towns, and other traffic
generators of intracounty importance, which are not directly served by a higher system and link them to
larger towns or routes with higher classifications. Examples of traffic generators for this classification
include schools, shipping points, county parks, and important mining and agricultural areas” (KYTC
2014a).
For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed the most likely access to the site would be from KY 588.

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-13

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

5.5.2.1

Construction

Alternative 2 would involve the same types of construction activities as Alternative 1, and would
temporarily increase traffic volumes during the construction period. Trucks would be used to
deliver/remove construction materials and equipment, and to haul excess fill material and/or construction
debris. Because traffic volumes are relatively low on roadways that provide access to the site, the
temporary increase in truck traffic is not expected to have a significant effect on street capacity. However,
particularly heavy trucks could exceed the maximum weight limit of certain bridges located near the
Roxana site. This potential impact would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level with the
implementation of the mitigation described below in Section 5.5.4, Mitigation. With the implementation
of this measure, the addition of construction related trips is not expected to result in a significant trafficrelated impact. Additionally, impacts to KY 588 are anticipated due to truck traffic transporting
construction equipment and materials to the proposed Roxana site. KY 588 has narrow lane widths and
pavement design that is not at a level for a national or state truck route (Parsons 2015).
5.5.2.2

Operations

Following construction, the proposed federal correctional facility would add traffic to the surrounding
street network on a recurring basis. This traffic increase would include commuting trips of 300 full-time
employees plus additional trips such as the transfer of inmates, inmate visitors, and delivery of supplies
and equipment, which would not necessarily coincide with peak commuting periods. Table 5-10 presents
peak hour traffic generation. As shown in this table, the proposed facility would add approximately 156
trips during the morning peak hour and 204 trips during the afternoon peak hour. Accordingly, operations
traffic for Alternative 2 has the potential to incrementally increase congestion on the surrounding roadway
network. Potential effects include increased delay at intersections and/or reduced travel speed on roadway
segments. These potential impacts would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level with the
implementation of mitigation described below in Section 5.5.4, Mitigation.
Table 5-10. Estimated Peak Hour Trip Generation

In
97

AM Peak Hour Trips
Out
59

Total
156

In
55

PM Peak Hour Trips
Out
149

Total
204

Note::(a) Land use and trip rates from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition (ITE 2012) for Land Use 571 (Prison).
Source: Parsons 2015.

Based on the trip generation and existing conditions, the traffic impact analysis determined that KY 588
in the vicinity of the Roxana site would function at LOS B. Additionally, the traffic impact analysis
determined that the intersection of KY 588 and the proposed access to the Roxana site would function at
LOS A during a.m. and p.m. peak periods for both northbound and westbound traffic (Parsons 2015).
Based on the traffic impact analysis, there would be no significant impacts to traffic.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.5.3.
Mitigation
Mitigation measures would include a requirement that the selected construction contractor perform an
assessment of the routing of construction traffic to the site. The construction contractor would also be
required to:
5-14

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Route construction vehicles so that gross vehicle weight does not exceed the maximum weight
limitations established by the KYTC
Bond the roads where limitations may be exceeded and repair the roads upon completion of
construction
Develop and implement a maintenance of traffic plan to maintain traffic flow when construction
equipment is being transported to the site

•
•
•

AIR QUALITY
Affected Environment
Like Alternative 1, the affected environment for Alternative 2 includes the Appalachian Intrastate Air
Quality Control Region. Air quality in the study area is considered good, with the study area designated
as unclassifiable, attainment, or better than national standards for all criteria pollutants.
Environmental Consequences
The results of the air emissions analysis show that construction and operational emissions under
Alternative 2 would remain well below the significance thresholds and would not have a significant
impact on the local or regional air quality. A summary of the analysis is presented below and the
complete analysis is provided in Appendix C, Air Emissions Calculations.
5.6.2.1

Construction

Direct impacts from emissions from construction would include combustion emissions from fossil fuelpowered equipment and fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) during clearing, demolition activities,
earth moving activities, and operation of equipment on bare soil. Table 5-11 presents estimates for the
primary construction activities that would utilize heavy duty diesel equipment for the Roxana site.
Table 5-11. Construction Emission Estimates for Roxana Site
Site
Roxana
Roxana

Year
1
2

VOC
Tons
3.27
3.27

CO
Tons
13.87
13.87

NOx
Tons
42.32
42.32

SO2
Tons
0.83
0.83

PM10
Tons
158.71
106.64

PM2.5
Tons
18.05
12.85

Fugitive dust from land disturbance activities would be the primary source of emissions during
construction, with most of the emissions occurring during Year 1. PM10 emissions are estimated using
wetting and other typical reduction practices to reduce dust release by 50 percent. PM10 emissions are
predicted to be greatest in Year 1 at the Roxana site, at 158.71 TPY. These emissions, however, would
remain well below the significance threshold of 250 TPY. Construction emissions would not have direct
or indirect significant impacts on the region’s air quality.
Direct impacts to air quality may also include emissions from the burning of construction debris, if such
an activity were undertaken during construction. Vegetative debris and/or demolition and construction
materials would be disposed in accordance with all laws and regulations. Should open burning be
necessary, it would be conducted in accordance with 401 KAR 63:005, Open Burning.
5.6.2.2

Operations

Table 5-12 presents the annual emissions based on the site being fully operational. Stationary sources
operating on-site would include two 2000-kilowatt diesel-powered emergency generators and three
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-15

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

boilers to provide heat and hot water for the site. The boilers have been estimated at 15 MMBtu/hr. One
of the boilers would serve as a backup, so air emission calculations evaluated use of two boilers. All of
these stationary sources would require an air permit and be regulated by the KDEP, Division for Air
Quality. Analysis of permit requirements based on the final stationary source(s) type and design would be
performed as design requirements are more fully delineated. This would ensure regulatory permit
compliance and that all requisite source registrations would be submitted.
In addition to stationary sources, the emissions from staff commuting to and from work have been
estimated at 300 employees and working 365 days per year. The round trip was estimated at 40 miles
because of the rural location of the Roxana site.
Table 5-12. Estimated Annual Operational Emissions

Source
Generators
Boilers
Staff Vehicles

Total

VOC
Tons/Year
0.25
0.26
0.19
0.70

CO
Tons/year
2.15
3.80
23.38
29.33

NOx
Tons/ Year
5.09
15.2
1.07
21.36

SO2
Tons/Year
0.00
0.16
0.02
0.18

PM10
Tons/Year
0.27
0.76
0.12
1.16

PM2.5
Tons/Year
0.27
0.19
0.11
0.58

All of the criteria pollutant emissions remain well below the significance threshold of 250 TPY. Based on
the emission estimates, operation of the federal correctional facility at the Roxana site would not have
direct or indirect significant impacts on the local or regional air quality.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, construction of the USP and FPC would not occur. The No Action
Alternative would not result in emissions of any air pollutants. Therefore, there would be no impact to
regional air quality
Mitigation
Best management practices would be implemented to reduce air emissions. They may include, but are not
limited to:
•
•
•
•

Periodic wetting during clearing, excavation, filling, and grading activities to minimize impacts to
air quality (PM10 emissions) from fugitive dust
Utilization of alternatively fueled equipment
Utilization of other emission controls that are applicable to the equipment being used on-site
Reduction of idling time of equipment and construction vehicles

NOISE
Affected Environment
The Roxana site is located in a rural area with minimal noise. Areas of the site located immediately
adjacent to KY 588 and KY 160 would experience some noise from traffic traveling through the area.
There is nothing located on the site that currently generates noise.

5-16

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Environmental Consequences
5.7.2.1

Construction

Construction activities under Alternative 2 would result in temporary, short-term increases in noise levels.
Noise associated with construction equipment and vehicles, as well as blasting activities to remove
bedrock, would occur during site preparation and construction.
Alternative 2 would generate noise during the construction phases of the USP and FPC. Phases of
construction that would generate noise include: land clearing and excavations, pile driving, foundation
and capping, erection of structural materials, and construction of exterior walls. Noise from construction
equipment operating at the site, construction/delivery vehicles traveling to and from the site, and pile
driving activities required for placement of deep pile foundations would impact noise levels. Noise levels
at a given receptor location would depend on the type and number of pieces of construction equipment
being operated and the receptor’s distance from the construction site. Table 5-13 lists construction related
noise emissions, which can range from 74 to 101 dBA when measured 50 feet from the respective piece
of equipment.
Small increases in noise levels would be expected as a result of the operation of delivery trucks and other
construction vehicles. However, larger increases in noise levels would result if pile driving activities are
necessary. Increased noise levels would be greatest during the early stages of each construction phase,
although these periods would be of relatively short duration. However, under the worst case scenario
during pile driving, there would be periods during construction when noise would range from 101 dBA at
50 feet from the equipment to 89 dBA at 200 feet from the equipment. The 200-foot radius from the
equipment would encompass primarily rural undeveloped areas, depending on the location of the pile
driving equipment at any given time on the Roxana site. Residences adjacent to the Roxana site are well
over 200 feet from the majority of construction areas. When compared to the existing noise conditions at
the Roxana site (35 dBA) and the OSHA noise thresholds for workers, the pile driving activities would
result in significant short-term impacts to noise receptors located within 200 feet of the pile driving
equipment location at the construction site, which would vary as the foundation piles would be driven
throughout the foundation footprint. Moderate noise impacts would extend up to 1.5 miles from the
construction site, as this is the distance at which noise levels would attenuate down to 55–60 dBA.
In conclusion, temporary and short-term noise disturbance would occur during construction; however,
implementation of noise attenuation measures described below would reduce potential disturbance from
noise. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would have no significant impacts to sensitive noise
receptors from noise.

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-17

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 5-13. Airborne Construction Related Noise Emissions
Equipment Description
Flat Bed Truck
Welder/Torch
Man Lift
Dump Truck
Backhoe
Compressor (air)
Concrete Mixer Truck
Drill Rig Truck
Front End Loader
Rivet Buster/Chipping Gun
Ventilation Fan
Drum Mixer
Vibratory Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump Truck
Crane
Generator
Pumps
Dozer
Boring Jack Power Unit
Warning Horn
Auger Drill Rig
Scraper
Pneumatic Tools
Vacuum Excavator
Vibrating Hopper
Jackhammer
Concrete Saw
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Sheers (on backhoe)
Impact Pile Driver
Vibratory Pile Driver

Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006.

5.7.2.2

Actual Measured Lmax at
50 feet (dBA)
74
74
75
76
78
78
79
79
79
79
79
80
80
81
81
81
81
82
83
83
84
84
85
85
87
89
90
90
96
101
101

Operations

The operation of the proposed USP and FPC, once construction is completed, is not expected to
significantly increase ambient noise levels.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.7.3.
Mitigation
To minimize the impact to noise receptors during the operation of the pile driving equipment, a variety of
measures would be taken, including but not limited to:
•
•
•

5-18

Using noise bellows systems to provide further noise attenuation
Performing the work during daytime hours
Scheduling the louder construction activities for less intrusive times (mid-morning to midafternoon)
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

INFRASTRUCTURE AND UTILITIES
Affected Environment
5.8.1.1

Potable Water

The LCWSD purchases water from Knott County to distribute in the Roxana area. The Bureau reviewed
the Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs or Water Quality Reports) for the LCWSD and the Knott
County Water and Sewer District for the past three reporting years of 2012, 2013, and 2014. The LCWSD
CCR for 2012 indicated two violations of turbidity levels for water provided to LCWSD by Knott
County. LCWSD also had an issue in 2014 for failing to submit reports to the drinking water database on
time. The Knott County Water and Sewer District CCR for 2012 indicates their system exceeded the
turbidity standard on two occasions, as mentioned above. In 2013, Knott County had no violations for the
water their system provided; however, they were cited for failing to provide their customers with a CCR.
In 2014, the Knott County Water and Sewer District had no violations.
Knott County Water and Sewer District has a withdrawal permit of 4 million gallons per day. Current
usage between Knott County and the LCWSD is approximately 2 million gallons per day (Lewis 2015).
The LCWSD is currently in the process of extending their water system to the eastern property boundary
of the proposed Roxana site. The water main at this location is 8 inches in diameter and has water
pressure near the connection point of approximately 110 pounds per square inch. Potable water would be
provided by the LCWSD via this connection at the eastern property boundary (Cardno 2014a).
Because municipally supplied water in Knott County is drawn from surface waters of the North Fork of
the Kentucky River, indirect impacts to public health have the potential to occur if drinking water quality
were to be compromised by coal mining or other activities in the watershed (LCWSD 2014). The water
supply would need be treated to meet drinking water standards prior to distribution to consumers. If
drinking water standards cannot be met a public health advisory would be issued and consumers would be
advised as to how to further treat the water at home (i.e., boiling) or a consumption ban would be
implemented and consumers would be provided with bottled water (KDEP 2015).
5.8.1.2

Wastewater

The LCWSD provides sanitary sewer service to the Roxana area. As with the water service, the LCWSD
is currently extending their wastewater collection service in the area of the Roxana site. The closest
existing connection is approximately 2.75 miles from the Roxana site (Figure 5-2). The LCWSD does not
currently have plans to extend the sanitary sewer service to the property boundary of the Roxana site
(Cardno 2014a). The LCWSD has a permitted capacity of 600,000 gallons per day and currently treats
approximately 300,000 gallons per day.
5.8.1.3

Natural Gas

The Roxana site contains multiple gas wells and gas transmission lines. There are 14 Hayden Harper gas
wells and one EQT gas well within the Roxana site (Cardno 2014a). Gas transmission lines are also
adjacent to the Roxana site.
5.8.1.4

Electricity

AEP lines extend along KY 160 and Big Branch-Tolson Creek Road in the vicinity of the Roxana site and
would be able to provide electricity to the Roxana site (Cardno 2014a).
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-19

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 5-2. Roxana Existing Utilities

5-20

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

5.8.1.5

Telecommunications

Birch Communications provides telecommunications services to the area where the Roxana site is
located. Birch Communications has the capacity to provide telecommunications service to the Roxana site
(Cardno 2014a).
5.8.1.6

Solid Waste

Solid waste generated within Letcher County is disposed of at the Laurel Ridge Landfill in London,
Kentucky, approximately 90 miles west of Whitesburg (Laurel Ridge Landfill 2014). The Laurel Ridge
Landfill has a maximum annual limit of 350,000 tons. The landfill currently receives approximately
320,000 tons annually. Based on their current capacity, the landfill has a 30-year life expectancy.
Environmental Consequences
5.8.2.1

Potable Water

The LCWSD has assured the Bureau that the Knott County Water and Sewer District, the supplier of
potable water to the LCWSD for the Roxana site, has resolved past water quality issues and should not
have further violations of drinking water quality standards (Lewis 2015). The most recent water report for
LCWSD (2014) indicates no violations of drinking water standards. Therefore, implementation of
Alternative 2 would have no significant impacts related to water quality.
The USP and FPC are anticipated to require 214 gallons per day per inmate. Based on an anticipated
inmate population of 1,200, a total of 258,000 gallons per day would be required under the proposed
action. Additionally, the utility plant, warehouses, and training building would require approximately
6,160 gallons per day. Therefore, operation of the proposed federal correctional facility would require
approximately 264,000 gallons of potable water per day. The Knott County Water and Sewer District has
a withdrawal permit of 4 million gallons per day. Current usage between Knott County and LCWSD is
approximately 2 million gallons per day; therefore, available capacity is 2 million gallons per day. The
LCWSD does not have a limit on the amount of water it can purchase. The proposed action requirement
for 264,000 gallons per day is well within the available capacity. Therefore, the additional usage by the
USP, FPC, and ancillary facilities would not result in impacts to the water supply under Alternative 2.
5.8.2.2

Wastewater

Implementation of the proposed action under Alternative 2 would generate approximately 224,000
gallons per day of wastewater. This would increase wastewater treatment at the LCWSD to 524,000
gallons per day, which would not result in the LCWSD exceeding their permitted capacity of 600,000
gallons per day. Therefore, no adverse impacts to wastewater would occur under Alternative 2.
5.8.2.3

Natural Gas

Implementation of the proposed action under Alternative 2 would require the closure and plugging of 15
gas wells that are located within the Roxana site. It would take approximately six months to close these
wells. Closure of the 15 gas wells would result in significant impacts to Hayden Harper and EQT, the
owners of the gas wells. The Bureau would be able to connect to the natural gas distribution system
located adjacent to the Roxana property for the cost of the meter and tap, which is estimated to be
$110,000. There is sufficient natural gas available and, therefore, the use of natural gas at the USP and
FPC would not impact natural gas availability.
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-21

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

5.8.2.4

Electricity

In coordination with the electric service provider, AEP has indicated it has ample capacity to provide
service to the federal correctional facility. AEP would extend overhead lines to a predetermined handoff
point to the secure perimeter, and the Bureau would extend the service on-site to the needed facilities
(Cardno 2014a). There would be no charge to extend the overhead lines to the handoff point and no issues
with capacity; therefore, no adverse impacts to electrical capacity would occur under Alternative 2.
5.8.2.5

Telecommunications

Implementation of the proposed action under Alternative 2 would not result in impacts to the available
capacity of Birch Communications; however, in order to provide the service a new remote terminal would
need to be constructed, as well as the installation of approximately 4 miles of fiber optic cables and 0.5
miles of copper cable. Construction of the terminal and cables would be the responsibility of the Bureau
(Cardno 2014a). Costs to complete construction and install the cables would be approximately $190,000.
5.8.2.6

Solid Waste

The Bureau estimates that an inmate would generate 4 pounds of solid waste per day or 1,460 pounds per
year. With an estimated 1,200 inmates, the proposed action would generate 4,800 pounds per day of solid
waste, or 1,752,000 pounds per year (876 TPY). The solid waste generated at the federal correctional
facility would increase the amount of solid waste taken to the Laurel Ridge Landfill from 320,000 TPY to
320,876 TPY. This increase would not result in the landfill going over its current yearly maximum intake
of solid waste; therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to the Laurel Ridge Landfill from
implementation of Alternative 2.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.8.3.
Mitigation
Mitigation for impacts to the gas wells at the Roxana site would require the Bureau to pay the owners of
the wells (Hayden Harper and EQT) for the costs associated with closure and abandonment of the wells.
The anticipated costs range from $300,000 to $1,000,000 per well based on the remaining production of
each well. The anticipated cost to close all 15 wells is $12.75 million (Cardno 2014a; see Appendix D,
Enhanced Utility Report). All gas wells on the Roxana site would be permanently closed and abandoned
and the pipes relocated according to standards required by federal and state regulations. Groundwater at
the Roxana site would not be used for any purpose at the USP or FPC. No other mitigation would be
required.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
An APE was defined to take into consideration both potential direct and indirect effects to cultural
resources from implementation of the proposed action at the Roxana site. The APE for Alternative 2
includes the 700-acre (283-hectare) Roxana site and adjacent areas to the north (Figure 5-3). The APE
extends beyond the north boundary of the Roxana site because of the potential for visual effects to any
historic properties that may be present within the viewshed of the proposed federal correctional facility’s
one- to four-story buildings. Effects to archaeological resources, however, would be limited to the 300acre (121-hectare) area within the APE where construction (direct ground disturbance) would occur.
5-22

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Affected Environment
5.9.1.1

Archaeological Resources

Mapping, aerial photos, and a pedestrian reconnaissance in August 2011 and August 2014 indicated that
the Roxana site had been completely disturbed by former surface mining activities. Photo-documentation
was conducted at the site; however, no subsurface testing was completed. In addition, background
research indicated that no previously identified archaeological sites were present at the proposed Roxana
site. No archaeological resources eligible for listing on the NRHP are present and no further work was
recommended at the Roxana site as a result of the 2011 and 2014 archaeological surveys. Concurrence
was received from the SHPO on January 24, 2012 and on December 22, 2014 (Appendix A, Agency
Coordination).
5.9.1.2

Traditional Cultural Properties

Under Section 106 of the NHPA, a federal agency is required to give consideration to issues of traditional
religious or cultural areas concerning Native American groups. No TCPs have been identified within the
APE for Alternative 2.
5.9.1.3

Architectural Resources

The 2011 reconnaissance survey of the Roxana site APE identified two architectural resources for further
investigation; the other architectural resources in the APE were not recommended for further work
because they were not associated with significant historical or architectural contexts of Letcher County
and/or were in poor condition (TEC, Inc. 2011a). An intensive-level survey of two mid-twentieth century
square-plan pyramidal houses (LR152 and LR153) was conducted in 2013 to determine the NRHP
eligibility of the properties (Figure 5-3; Table 5-14). One of the houses (LR153) also included several
domestic and agricultural outbuildings. Both properties were recommended not eligible for listing in the
NRHP because they do not meet the NRHP criteria for eligibility (Cardno 2014b). The KHC concurred
that both properties are not eligible (KHC 2014) (Appendix A, Agency Coordination).
Table 5-14. Architectural Resources in the Roxana Site APE Evaluated for NRHP Eligibility

Site
Number
LR152
LR153

Property Name
Pearl Whitaker House
George Whitaker
House

Year Built
Ca. 1940
1940

Description
Square-plan pyramidal house
Square-plan pyramidal house and
nine outbuildings

NRHP Eligibility
Not Eligible
Not Eligible

Environmental Consequences
The cultural resources surveys for the proposed action did not identify any archaeological sites or
architectural resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP in the APE for the Roxana site. Therefore,
Alternative 2 would have no effect on NRHP-listed or eligible cultural resources.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.9.3.
Mitigation
Alternative 2 would have no impact to NRHP-listed or eligible cultural resources; therefore, no mitigation
is required.

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-23

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 5-3. Architectural Resources Evaluated in the APE for Alternative 2
5-24

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

WATER RESOURCES
Affected Environment
5.10.1.1

Surface Water

The Roxana site is situated on top of a plateau, which is the result of surface mining of a portion of the
mountain. As a result of the mining, the hydrology of the site has been greatly disturbed. There are
several ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial unnamed, small streams identified and mapped within the
proposed project area. Additionally, an open water wetland (pond) comprising approximately 0.41 acres
(0.17 hectares) is located along the eastern boundary, north of Rise Branch.
The Roxana site lies in the same watershed as the Payne Gap site. The HUC units are the Ohio Region
(HUC 05); Kentucky-Licking Subregion (HUC 0510); the Kentucky River Basin (HUC 051002); and the
North Fork Kentucky River Watershed (HUC 05100201) (USEPA 2013a). The Roxana site contains
surface water features including headwater intermittent and perennial streams.
Water quality of the streams on the Roxana site has not been assessed by the USEPA, and there are no
identified impaired waters or TMDLs for the Roxana site (USEPA 2013a). The closest assessed water
body to the Roxana site is the North Fork of the Kentucky River, located approximately 0.2 miles north of
the site on the opposite side of KY 588/KY 160. The North Fork of the Kentucky River was assessed for
primary contact recreation and was determined to be impaired as a result of elevated levels of fecal
coliform. The elevated levels of fecal coliform were believed to be the result of point source discharges
from sewage package plants (USEPA 2013a).
Mining operations have the potential to affect water quality of the North Fork Kentucky River Watershed.
There are five active mining operations in the watershed. These mining operations have no direct impacts
on water quality of the Roxana site due to their distance (approximately 1 mile or greater) and
hydrological separation from the site. Because municipally supplied water is drawn from the North Fork
in Letcher County, indirect impacts to public health have the potential to occur if drinking water quality
were to be compromised by coal mining or other activities in the North Fork watershed. The water supply
would need be treated to meet drinking water standards prior to distribution to consumers. If drinking
water standards cannot be met, a public health advisory would be issued and consumers would be advised
as to how to further treat the water at home (i.e. boiling) or a consumption ban would be implemented and
consumers would be provided with bottled water (KDEP 2015). The potable water supply is discussed
further in Section 5.8, Infrastructure and Utilities.
Regular post-mining surface water monitoring was conducted on the Roxana site in the mid-1990s.
Results from mining permit-related water quality reports from 1993 to 1995 show the waters exhibited net
alkalinity and moderate pH values, indicating alkaline-rich minerals that neutralize acid production, and
low iron and manganese, indicating low dissolved metals concentrations in general (Cardno 2016a). This
condition signifies that any acidity generated upon initial exposure of the rock was fully neutralized by
the inherent alkalinity, such that acidic and/or metals-rich discharges did not occur.
An investigation of the previous surface mining-related overburden at the Roxana site was conducted in
November 2015 and finalized in January 2016 (see Appendix H) to determine the geochemical character
of the rock rubble and whether its excavation and on-site relocation for development of the proposed
federal correctional facility would be likely to generate material environmental impacts on the site and/or
to streams receiving drainage from the redistributed material. The investigation included subsurface
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-25

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

sampling of the rubble material itself and sampling of existing water discharges on the site to document
existing surface and groundwater quality and determine whether there is likelihood of acid mine drainage,
including dissolution of metals of possible health concern.
For the water sampling, water samples were collected from six different locations on the site: the
discharges of three hollow fills in the east, southeast, and northwest portions of the site, the eastern
hollow fill discharge below the pond, and the mouths of the two small streams flowing westerly from the
site. The water samples were analyzed for general chemistry including metals to document existing water
quality and identify indications of water quality impacts from contact with the mine overburden. Analysis
of the water samples shows the existing water in the hollow fill discharges contains elevated levels of
total dissolved solids and sulfate, indicating a high degree of weathering has occurred since mining and
the continued flushing out of weathering-produced dissolved sulfidic minerals. However, the water also
contains substantial acid-neutralizing minerals (principally calcium and magnesium), which fully
neutralize any acidic drainage generated during the weathering process. Specifically, the results of the
samples indicate there are no concentrations of metals at levels of human health concern in water that has
percolated through the rock rubble (Cardno 2016a).
The subsurface sampling of the rock rubble consisted of drilling two boreholes each at the proposed
locations of the USP, the FPC, and the Outside Warehouse and Central Utility Plant. Forty-five rock
samples from the six borings were tested to determine the acid-production or acid-neutralization potential
of the mine overburden material. The results of the boring sample tests indicate the sampled material is
relatively low in sulfur content, with very low potential to generate acidic drainage. Additionally, the rock
that would be excavated and relocated is generally well-weathered material that contains more acidneutralizing than acid-generating potential, and thus, is likely to produce neutral or somewhat alkaline
drainage upon weathering, rather than acid drainage (Cardno 2016a). That finding is consistent with that
of the water sampling program. No significant change in water quality is expected to result from
redistribution of the rubble material. A detailed report on the results of the investigation is provided in
Appendix H, Investigation of Rock Rubble Material, Roxana Site.
5.10.1.2

Wetlands

Site-specific wetland data was collected through onsite field work, aerial photographs, topographic maps,
NWI wetland maps, and Natural Resources Conservation Service soil surveys. Wetland delineations on
the Roxana site were conducted in May 2011 and August 2014, and included identification of waters of
the U.S.
Approximately 3.1 acres (1.3 hectares) of wetlands were delineated on the Roxana site. The majority of
the wetlands are located within the east and west sides of the south-central portion of the site. In addition,
several intermittent, perennial, and ephemeral streams were delineated on site (TEC, Inc. 2011c; Cardno
2014c). Hydrology supporting the wetlands on the Roxana site is a result of surface runoff from the
surrounding lands, groundwater, and direct precipitation. Dominant vegetation within the wetlands
identified on the Roxana site is typified by broadleaf cattail, black willow, spicebush (Lindera benzoin),
Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and woolgrass.
Table 5-15 summarizes acres by wetland type and linear feet of jurisdictional stream within the Roxana
site. Figure 5-4 depicts wetlands and streams delineated within the Roxana site.

5-26

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 5-15. Wetland and Streams Delineated at Roxana
Feature Type
Wetlands
Palustrine Emergent
Palustrine Scrub-Shrub
Palustrine Forested
Palustrine Upland Island
Streams
Jurisdictional Stream
Non-Jurisdictional Stream

Roxana Site
Acres/Hectares
Linear Feet

Total

Notes: N/A = Not Applicable.

5.10.1.3

0.8/0.3
1.4/0.6
0.7/0.3
0.2/0.1

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

3.1/1.3

8,383
182
8,565

Groundwater

There are no groundwater wells on the Roxana site, but there is a domestic single household well located
approximately 250 feet north of the site at an elevation of 1,200 feet with a depth to water of 80 feet
(KGS 2013). Groundwater flow tends to follow the sloped topography and is assumed to flow to the
north, east, and west towards the North Fork Kentucky River, Kings Creek, and Tolson Branch,
respectively. Variations in groundwater conditions are expected based on location and elevation across
the site, seasonal conditions, and weather patterns. The Roxana site is underlain by subsurface geology of
the Breathitt Group, which is comprised of the Pikeville Formation and the Hyden Formation, and the
Four Corners Formation. The Breathitt Group yields more than 500 gallons of groundwater per day in
more than three-quarters of the wells drilled in valley bottoms, more than 500 gallons per day in about
three-quarters of the wells on hillsides, and more than 100 gallons per day to nearly all wells on ridges
within Letcher County (KGS 2013). There are no sole source aquifers underlying the site (USEPA
2013b).
The quality of the groundwater in Letcher County ranges from moderately hard in most of the county to
moderately soft south of Pine Mountain. Naturally occurring contaminants present in the groundwater
consist of sulfate, salt (sodium chloride), iron, and manganese (KGS 2013).
According to the Kentucky Division of Water, Groundwater Branch, Letcher County has areas of
moderate and high sensitivity to groundwater pollution. The hydrogeologic sensitivity reflects the ease
and speed with which a contaminant can move into and within a groundwater system. The hydrogeologic
sensitivity of Letcher County has been assigned a value of three out of five, with five being the most
susceptible to groundwater pollution and one being the least susceptible. The region is given a three due
to subcutaneous drain and enlarged fractures influence groundwater recharge, fissure networks influence
flow, and bidirectional dispersal patterns influence overall dispersion (KDEP 1994).
As described above in Section 5.10.1.1, Surface Water, the rock overburden from previous surface mining
consists of well-weathered material with significant amounts of acid-neutralizing minerals. The six water
samples from the site confirm that any acid production from the weathering process has been completely
neutralized (refer to Appendix H, Investigation of Rock Rubble Material, Roxana Site).
Analysis of the results of the water samples also indicates there has been no impact to groundwater
quality from the existing gas wells within the site (refer to Section 5.8.1.3, Natural Gas), as the samples
contain very low concentrations of sodium, chloride, and barium, parameters that are often indicators of
leakage from gas or oil wells (Cardno 2016a).
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-27

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Figure 5-4. Roxana Wetlands and Streams
5-28

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

5.10.1.4

Floodplains

The Roxana site is not located in a 100-year floodplain (Environmental Data Resources 2015).
Environmental Consequences
5.10.2.1

Surface Water

It is not anticipated that water quality of nearby streams and wetlands would be adversely impacted by on
site construction. BMPs would be implemented based on an approved erosion and sediment control plan,
which would minimize sediment and pollutants from the construction site being carried into nearby water
courses.
An investigation of the previous surface mining-related overburden at the Roxana site and water
discharges at the hollow fills around the perimeter of the reclaimed mine site indicates a very low
likelihood that acid mine drainage would be generated by the excavation and on-site relocation of the rock
material for development of the proposed federal correctional facility (Appendix H, Investigation of Rock
Rubble Material, Roxana Site). The sampled rock from the deep borings consists of well-weathered, lowreactivity material exhibiting more acid-neutralizing potential than acid-generating potential, and poses no
significant risk of producing acidic drainage or drainage with significant levels of dissolved metals of
concern to human health in occupancy of the site. Furthermore, there are no concentrations of metals at
levels of potential human health concern in water that has drained through the rubble rock material. The
water quality of current drainage is similar to that which existed after surface mining operations ended,
and would not be likely to change by the proposed site development activities. Therefore, under
Alternative 2, construction of the USP and FPC would not result in significant impacts to surface water
quality.
5.10.2.2

Wetlands

Implementation of the proposed action at the Roxana site would result in permanent impacts to
approximately 4,117 linear feet of stream, 0.37 acres (0.15 hectares) of forested wetlands, 0.7 acres
(0.28 hectares) of emergent wetlands, and 1.38 acres (0.56 hectares) of scrub-shrub wetlands. These
impacts would be to the streams and wetlands delineated in 2011 and 2014 (Table 5-15) and would result
primarily from the excavation and grading activities that would be required to prepare the site for the
development of the USP, FPC, ancillary buildings, and roads.
5.10.2.3

Groundwater

The Bureau would prepare and implement a groundwater protection plan in accordance with Kentucky
regulations (401 KAR 5:037) to protect groundwater quality during construction and operation of the
federal correctional facility under Alternative 2. The site-specific groundwater protection plan would
describe the activities that have the potential to pollute groundwater and include the measures and
practices that will be implemented during construction and operation of the facility such as providing
secondary containment for petroleum storage tanks. Groundwater at the Roxana site would not be used
for any purpose at the USP or FPC; therefore, there would not be human health impacts associated with
groundwater use, nor would there be direct or indirect impacts to groundwater quantity. Therefore,
construction and operation of the USP and FPC under Alternative 2 would have no significant impacts
related to groundwater.

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-29

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

An investigation of the previous surface mining-related overburden on the Roxana site and water
discharges at the hollow fills around the perimeter of the reclaimed mine site indicates a very low
likelihood that acid mine drainage would be generated by the excavation and on-site relocation of the rock
material for development of the proposed federal correctional facility (Appendix H, Investigation of Rock
Rubble Material, Roxana Site). The sampled rock from the deep borings consists of well-weathered, lowreactivity material exhibiting more acid-neutralizing potential than acid-generating potential, and poses no
significant risk of producing acidic drainage or drainage with significant levels of dissolved metals of
concern to human health in occupancy of the site. Furthermore, there are no concentrations of metals at
levels of potential human health concern in water that has drained through the rubble rock material. The
water quality of current drainage is similar to that which existed after surface mining operations ended,
and would not be likely to change by the proposed site development activities. Therefore, under
Alternative 2, construction of the USP and FPC would not result in significant impacts to groundwater
quality.
As discussed in Section 5.8.2.3, Natural Gas, under Alternative 2 the gas wells on the Roxana site would
be permanently closed and plugged, and associated transmission lines relocated. The test results of the
water discharge samples from the Roxana site reveal that the water includes very low concentrations of
sodium, chloride, and barium. This finding indicates that there is no significant or detectable impact from
deep saline waters that may have been encountered with installation of the gas wells at the site. Their
closure would ensure that no such impact is likely to occur in the future.
5.10.2.4

Floodplains

The Roxana site is not located within a 100-year floodplain; therefore, no impacts to floodplains would
occur under Alternative 2.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.10.3.
Mitigation
The Bureau met with the USACE on May 19, 2015 to discuss mitigation for the Roxana site. Wetland
mitigation would be paid into an in-lieu fee fund. Wetland impact mitigation is calculated by adding total
acreage of wetlands to be impacted and multiplying by 2. Wetland impacts on the Roxana site total
2.43 acres X 2 = 4.86 AMUs (Adjusted Mitigation Units) to be purchased. To determine the cost
associated with wetland mitigation, the Bureau would contact the Kentucky Department of Fish and
Wildlife Resources to determine the cost of AMUs at the time of purchase. The last recent quote was
$43,000 per AMU, which would equate to $208,980 for wetland impact mitigation at the Roxana Site.
These rates may increase depending on when the Section 404 permit is acquired. Stream mitigation would
be based on Ecological Integrity Units (EIU). The EIU is calculated based on the stream rating (assessed
using the USEPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Protocol Sheets). To account for cumulative and temporary
impacts, the EIU is multiplied by 1.2 (20 percent cumulative and temporary impacts); the result is a total
of 1,414 EIUs. The current In Lieu Fee Credits are $755 per credit (EIU). Therefore, the total for stream
mitigation would be $1,067,570 at current 2015 rates. When construction funding becomes available, the
Section 404 permit would be applied for and mitigation costs would be updated according to the current
mitigation rates and permit requirements. Mitigation In Lieu Fees for stream and wetland mitigation
combined, using 2015 In Lieu Fee rates would total $1,276,550.
5-30

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Affected Environment
5.11.1.1

Vegetation

A large portion of the Roxana site has been disturbed by historic mining activities, which created a
relatively level area on the mountaintop. A site visit indicated a level portion of the site is farmed and
portions not under agriculture are routinely bushhogged or are dominated by scrub shrub vegetation (e.g.,
autumn olive, multiflora rose, etc.). The mountain slopes are primarily forested with the exception of
slopes created by fill from mining; these slopes are dominated by invasive species such as autumn olive
and paradise tree (Ailanthus altissima). Upland vegetation includes northern red oak, eastern red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), sericea lespedeza, paradise tree, Allegheny blackberry, Virginia pine (Pinus
virgininana), bluestem broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), tuliptree, American beech, Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Ohio buckeye (Aesculus glabra), red maple (Acer rubrum), stinging nettle
(Urtica dioica), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Wetland vegetation at the Roxana site
includes American sycamore, woolgrass, black willow, spicebush, Nepalese browntop, small spike
falsenettle (Boehemeria cylindrica), and cinnamon fern.
5.11.1.2

Wildlife

Non-avian species likely to be found on the Roxana site include coyote (Canis latrans), Virginia opossum
(Dipelphis virginiana), American black bear (Ursus americanus), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius),
white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), green frog (Rana clamitans melanota), American toad (Bufo
americanus), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta obsolete), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), eastern
hognose snake (Heterodon platirhinos), and fence lizard (Sceloporus undulates) (Kentucky Department
of Fish and Wildlife Resources 2013).
Representative migratory bird species potentially occurring in Letcher County and within the project area
include tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus erythropthalmus), blue-winged warbler (Vermivora
pinus), cerulean warbler (Dendroica cerulea), Kentucky warbler (Oporornis formosus), prairie warbler
(Dendroica discolor), Swainson’s warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii), worm eating warbler (Helmitheros
vermivorum), fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca), wood thrush (Hylocichia mustelina), Louisiana waterthrush
(Parkesia motacilla), least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), rusty
blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and shorteared owl (Asio flammeus) (USFWS 2015a).
5.11.1.3

Threatened and Endangered Species

Due to the number of state-listed species listed by Kentucky as potentially occurring in Letcher County,
the following section focuses on federally listed species. A full list of listed species and their status is
included in Table 5-16.

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-31

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 5-16. State and Federal Report of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Plants,
and Animals of Letcher County, Kentucky

Scientific Name
Liverworts
Plagiochila caduciloba
Mosses
Anomodon rugelii
Brachythecium populeum
Cirriphyllum piliferum
Dicranodontium asperulum
Entodon brevisetus
Neckera pennata
Oncophorus raui
Polytrichum pallidisetum
Polytrichum strictum
Sphagnum quinquefarium
Vascular Plants
Adlumia fungosa
Angelica triquinata
Baptisia tinctoria
Botrychium matricariifolium
Boykinia aconitifolia
Carex aestivalis
Carex appalachica
Castanea pumila
Circaea alpine
Corydalis sempervirens
Cymophyllus fraserianus
Cypripedium parviflorum
Eupatorium steelei
Gentiana decora
Hexastylis contracta
Houstonia serpyllifolia
Hydrophyllum virginianum
Juglans cinerea
Leucothoe recurve
Lilium superbum
Listera smallii
Monotropsis odorata
Oenothera oakesiana
Oenothera perennis
Orontium aquaticum
Pogonia ophioglossoides
Prosartes maculate
Sanguisorba Canadensis
Saxifraga michauxii
Saxifraga micranthidifolia
Solidago curtisii
Trillium undulatum
Terrestrial Snails
Glyphyalinia rhoadsi
Neohelix dentifera
Patera panselenus
5-32

Common Name

Status (State/Federal)

Gorge Leafy Liverwort

E/N

None
Matted Feather Moss
None
None
None
None
None
A Hair Cap Moss
None
Five-ranked Bogmoss

T/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
E/N

Allegheny-vine
Filmy Angelica
Yellow Wild Indigo
Matricary Grape-fern
Brook Saxifrage
Summer Sedge
Appalachian Sedge
Allegheny Chinkapin
Small Enchanter’s Nightshade
Rock Harlequin
Fraser’s Sedge
Small Yellow Lady’s-slipper
Steele’s Joe-pye-weed
Showy Gentian
Southern Heartleaf
Michaux’s Bluets
Eastern Waterleaf
White Walnut
Red-twig Doghobble
Turk’s Cap Lily
Kidney-leaf Twayblade
Sweet Pinesap
Evening Primrose
Small Sundrops
Golden Club
Rose Pogonia
Nodding Mandarin
Canada Burnet
Michaux’s Saxifrage
Lettuce-leaf Saxifrage
Curtis’ Goldenrod
Painted Trillium

H/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
E/N
E/N
T/N
T/N
S/N
S/N
E/N
T/N
T/N
S/N
E/SOMC
E/N
T/N
T/SOMC
E/N
T/N
T/N
T/SOMC
H/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
S/N
E/N
T/N
E/N
S/N
T/N

Sculpted Glyph
Big-tooth Whitelip
Virginia Bladetooth

T/N
T/N
S/N
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Table 5-16. State and Federal Report of Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Plants,
and Animals of Letcher County, Kentucky

Scientific Name
Crustaceans
Cambarus bunting
Cambarus parvoculus
Insects
Amphiagrion saucium
Calephelis borealis
Erora laeta
Litobrancha recurvate
Papaipema speciosissima
Phyciodes batesii
Stylurus notatus
Stylurus scudderi
Fishes
Chrosomus cumberlandensis
Etheostoma sagitta spilotum
Amphibians
Cryptobranchus alleganiensis
alleganiensis
Plethodon wehrlei
Birds
Accipiter striatus
Corvus corax
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Tyto alba
Vermivora chrysoptera
Mammals
Clethrionomys gapperi maurus
Corynorhinus rafinesquii
Mustela nivalis
Myotis grisescens
Myotis leibii
Myotis septentrionalis
Myotis sodalis
Sorex cinereus
Sorex dispar blitchi
Spilogale putorius
Ursus americanus

Common Name

Status (State/Federal)

Longclaw Crayfish
Mountain Midget Crayfish

S/N
T/N

Eastern Red Damsel
Northern Metalmark T
Early Hairstreak
A Burrowing Mayfly
Osmunda Borer Moth
Tawny Crescent
Elusive Clubtail
Zebra Clubtail

E/N
T/N
T/N
S/N
E/N
H/SOMC
E/SOMC
E/N

Blackside Dace
Kentucky Arrow Darter

T/LT
S/PT

Eastern Hellbender

E/SOMC

Wehrle’s Salamander

E/N

Sharp-shinned Hawk
Common Raven
Rose-breasted Grosbeak
Barn Owl
Golden-winged Warbler

S/N
T/N
S/N
S/N
T/SOMC

Kentucky Red-backed Vole
Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat
Least Weasel
Gray Bat
Eastern Small-footed Myotis
Northern Long-Eared Bat
Indiana Bat
Cinereus Shrew
Long-tailed Shrew
Eastern Spotted Skunk
American Black Bear

S/SOMC
S/SOMC
S/N
T/E
T/SOMC
E/T
E/E
S/N
E/N
S/N
S/N

Notes: E = Endangered, H = Historical, LT = Listed as Threatened, N = None, PT = Proposed Threatened, T = Threatened, S =
Special Concern, SOMC = Species of Management Concern.
Sources: Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission 2014; USFWS 2014, 2015c, d.

Based on coordination with the USFWS, four federally listed species have the potential to occur within
the Roxana site: gray bat, Indiana bat, northern long-eared bat, and Kentucky arrow darter (USFWS
2014).
The gray bat is federally listed as endangered and listed by Kentucky as threatened. The gray bat roosts in
caves throughout the year although suitable caves are rare. For winter hibernacula the bats require vertical
caves with domed halls. The winter caves must also have a temperature of between 6 and 11 degrees
Celsius. Forested areas along the banks of streams and lakes provide important protection for adults and
young. Summer caves are always within 1 kilometer (0.62 mile) of a river or reservoir where the bats
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-33

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

forage. Forests provide important feeding areas for young bats, which will not forage in areas where the
forests have been cleared (Natureserve 2013a).
The Indiana bat is federally and state-listed as endangered. The Indiana bat hibernates in caves; however,
maternity sites are generally behind loose bark of dead or dying trees or in tree cavities. They forage in
riparian areas, upland forests, ponds, and fields, but forested landscapes are the most important habitat.
They typically hibernate in the coldest area of a cave to ensure a low enough metabolic rate in order to
conserve fat reserves throughout the winter; however, they will move away from areas that dip below
freezing. Known roost tree species include elm, oak, beech, hickory, maple, ash, sassafras, birch,
sycamore, locust, aspen, cottonwood, pine, and hemlock with a preference for trees with exfoliating bark
(Natureserve 2013b).
The northern long-eared bat was listed as threatened under the ESA in April 2015 and is listed by
Kentucky as endangered. The northern long-eared bat hibernates in the small cracks and crevices of caves
and mines that have large passages and relatively constant, cool temperatures with high humidity and no
air currents. During the summer they roost singly or in colonies underneath bark or in cavities, crevices,
or hollows of both live and dead trees within forests, woodlots with dense or loose aggregates of trees,
riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. Males or non-reproductive females may also roost in caves
or mines. In addition, northern long-eared bats have been observed roosting in structures such as barns
and bridges. They are not considered to be a long-distance migrant, as they typically migrate 35–55 miles
between their winter hibernacula and summer habitat (USFWS 2015b).
Based on coordination with the USFWS, the Roxana site is in known P1/P2 swarming habitat for the
Indiana bat (USFWS 2014). A Phase I bat survey conducted in December 2014 identified the presence of
summer habitat for Indiana, northern long-eared and gray bats, but no potential winter habitat (i.e., caves
or hibernacula) for Indiana, northern long-eared, and gray bats (Copperhead Environmental Consulting
2015). The USFWS concurred with the findings of the Phase I survey (Appendix A, Agency
Coordination).
The Kentucky arrow darter was proposed for listing as a threatened species under the ESA in September
2015 (USFWS 2015c). The Kentucky arrow darter is known to exist in the upper Kentucky River basin.
Habitat for the species consists of pools and transitional areas between riffles and pools in moderate to
high gradient streams (USFWS 2015c). The streams within the Roxana site are primarily small channels
that do not contain riffle and pool complexes (USFWS 2013).
There is no federally designated critical habitat on the Roxana site (USFWS 2013).
Environmental Consequences
5.11.2.1

Vegetation

Direct impacts to vegetation would occur under Alternative 2 as approximately 93 acres (38 hectares) of
forested area would be cleared on the Roxana site for excavation and grading activities required to
prepare the site for development.
5.11.2.2

Wildlife

Wildlife species found on the Roxana site would likely be displaced during construction activities due to
the loss of habitat and increases in noise. However, approximately 607 acres (246 hectares) of the site
would remain undisturbed and continue to provide habitat, including breeding and foraging areas, for
wildlife species found on-site. Additionally, the site is surrounded by similar habitat that could
accommodate species that are displaced by construction activities. Based on the available habitat that
5-34

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

would remain on site and habitat adjacent to the site (Jefferson National Forest), it is anticipated that these
impacts would not adversely affect wildlife species that are currently present on-site.
Use of the non-lethal/lethal fence has the potential to result in adverse impacts to small animals and avian
species, should they pass through the outer fences and into the area of the non-lethal/lethal fence.
5.11.2.3

Threatened and Endangered Species

Implementation of the proposed action at the Roxana site has the potential to impact the federally listed
Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat. A Phase I bat habitat survey was conducted for Indiana, northern
long-eared, and gray bats. Based on the conceptual design, the proposed action would impact
approximately 93 acres (38 hectares) of potential summer roosting and foraging habitat for the Indiana bat
and northern long-eared bat and potential summer foraging habitat for the gray bat at the Roxana site. The
survey did not identify suitable winter roosting habitat for Indiana and northern long-eared bats or
summer and winter roosting habitat for gray bats at the Roxana site. Therefore, the Bureau determined
Alternative 2 may affect, is likely to adversely affect the Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat.
Adverse effects to both bat species from nighttime light pollution and glare may also occur. Indirect
impacts may result from the noise from the proposed outdoor firing range. The Bureau met with the
USFWS on May 20, 2015 to discuss additional studies and mitigation (Appendix A, Agency
Coordination).
It is not anticipated that the Kentucky arrow darter would be impacted by implementation of the proposed
action at the Roxana site. The streams within the Roxana site are small channels and do not contain riffle
pool complexes. Additionally, conductivity measurements were taken within streams on the project site in
June 2015. Conductivity measurements were taken within one stream that contained flow and the result
was a conductivity of 332 µS. Studies have demonstrated that Kentucky arrow darters are not likely to be
present when conductivity levels exceed approximately 250 µS (USFWS 2010). Therefore, no significant
impacts to the Kentucky arrow darter are anticipated under Alternative 2.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.11.3.
Mitigation
Mitigation measures for construction impacts to vegetation and wildlife would include minimizing
disturbance of existing vegetation to the greatest extent possible. An open area with a direct line of site is
required for the areas surrounding the USP and FPC; however, upon completion of construction,
disturbed areas would be re-vegetated with native, non-invasive plants to the maximum extent possible
while maintaining the Bureau’s site requirements.
The USFWS issued comments on the July 2015 Final EIS and stated that the Bureau sufficiently
identified the potential impacts to threatened and endangered species as a result of the proposed project
(refer to Appendix E-2 for correspondence from the USFWS). The Bureau will mitigate for take of
Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats through a Conservation Memorandum of Agreement (CMOA)
following the guidance provided in the USFWS’s April 2015 Conservation Strategy for Forest Dwelling
Bats in the Commonwealth of Kentucky (Conservation Strategy). The Biological Opinion that supports
the Conservation Strategy concludes with a “non-jeopardy” determination for adverse effects to the
Indiana bat and the northern long-eared bat and exempts the take resulting from the habitat removal
specified in the CMOA (the CMOA does not cover tree removal in June and July). Once the CMOA has
been completed, the Bureau will be in compliance for these species for this project.
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-35

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Under the CMOA, the Bureau would pay into the Imperiled Bat Conservation Fund for summer roosting
habitat impacted under Alternative 2. Payment into the fund would be based on the time of year habitat is
removed. Based on 2015 rates, mitigation costs would range from $732,375 to $1,024,325. The Imperiled
Bat Conservation Fund would then provide the mitigation fees to the Kentucky Natural Lands Trust to
purchase and protect important bat habitat.
The Bureau would implement conservation measures to avoid and minimize potential effects of site
lighting on the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat during construction and operations. To maintain
the character of the surrounding rural environment, hooded lights with reflectors would be used to
completely conceal the light source above the rim of the fixture, and which would result in maximum
down-lighting effects. Illumination of forest will be kept to an absolute minimum. In addition, all outdoor
construction activities would be conducted during daylight hours in known or suitable summer habitat to
avoid harassment of foraging Indiana and northern long-eared bats (April 15 through October 31).
The Bureau has conducted prior impact assessments for the installation of non-lethal/lethal fences,
especially for potential impacts to avian and small mammal species (Bureau 2009). These prior
assessments have found less than significant adverse impacts; consequently, less than significant impacts
are anticipated with the non-lethal/lethal fence to be installed as part of this proposed action. However,
following activation of the non-lethal/lethal fence, the Bureau would monitor the fence line to determine
if wildlife, particularly avian species, is being adversely affected. The Bureau would collect data
regarding these occurrences including identification of species and photographs. The data would be used
to document and analyze emerging trends. If adverse effects were identified, the Bureau would contact
the USFWS and appropriate state wildlife agencies to determine if changes to the operation of the fence
are warranted.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE
Affected Environment
5.12.1.1

Hazardous Materials

The Roxana site is located in a relatively undeveloped area. No hazardous materials are known to be in
storage or in use in this area. According to the USEPA “Cleanups In My Community” mapping tool, there
are no Brownfield, Superfund, or RCRA Corrective Action sites in the vicinity of the Roxana site. No
sites in the town of Roxana were listed in the USEPA’s TSCA or TRI databases. Site visits conducted in
2011, 2013, and 2014 did not observe any hazardous wastes or evidence of their presence (i.e., stressed
vegetation, stained soils, drums) on the site.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed on the Roxana site in July 2015. The
Environmental Site Assessment was conducted in accordance with the American Society for Materials
and Testing International Designation: E1527-13, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM E1527-13). The goal of the assessment was to
identify RECs on the Roxana site. An REC is defined in ASTM E1527-13 as “the presence or likely
presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to
the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions
that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.” An REC includes hazardous substances
or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. De minimis conditions are not
RECs, generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment, and generally would not be
5-36

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies.
Structures on the Roxana site were also assessed for the potential presence of asbestos-containing
material, lead-based paint, and radon, although no samples were collected during the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment.
Federal, state, and local databases were searched and three of the numerous databases, the Kentucky State
Hazardous Waste Sites (KY SHWS), Kentucky Underground Storage Tank (KY UST), and KY SPILLS
databases, contained information relevant to the Roxana site.
The KY SHWS database is Kentucky’s equivalent of the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). These sites may or may not
already be listed on the CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds (state
equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. One KY SHWS site was reported to be located over 1 mile from the Roxana site. The
Kentucky West Virginia Gas Pipeline (well line W-837) is located 1.215 miles north-northwest of the
Roxana site. According to the report, this gas line has been closed and the site restored. Therefore, it
would not have any impact on site conditions at the Roxana site.
The KY UST database contains information regarding USTs regulated under Subtitle I of RCRA that
must be registered with the commonwealth. Two registered USTs were reported to occur within 0.125
mile of the Roxana site. The Lee Gentry property, located at Highway 588 West, approximately 0.014
mile north-northeast of the site, was reported to contain a 560-gallon diesel UST and a 1,000-gallon
gasoline UST. The USTs were reportedly removed in March 1998. This property is located at a lower
elevation than the Roxana site, and consequently, would not have an impact on site conditions. The John
W. Ison Grocery, located at 14858 Highway 160, approximately 0.115 miles east of the site, was reported
to contain one 1,000-gallon, one 2,000-gallon, and two 3,000-gallon gasoline USTs. The 1,000-gallon and
2,000-gallon USTs were reportedly removed in July 1994 and the 3,000-gallon USTs were reportedly
removed in January 2014. This property is located at a lower elevation than the Roxana site and
consequently, would not have an impact on site conditions.
The KY SPILLS database is a listing of spill and/or release related incidents. One spill was reported to
have occurred within 0.25 mile of the Roxana site in 2004. According to the report, a coal company was
oiling a haul road resulting in soil contamination on the site. The incident was reported as being in
compliance. As a result, the spill would not have any impacts on the Roxana site that would constitute a
REC.
A site inspection of the property was conducted on July 20 and 21, 2015, in association with the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment. Relevant observations are described in the following paragraphs.
Several large ASTs were observed on the Roxana site. A storage tank was considered to be an REC due to
the fact that an open drainage valve presented a material threat of release. The tank was associated with
an active oil extraction operation and, therefore, was assumed to contain petroleum crude oil, as
placarded. A large plastic oil storage tank was observed approximately 1,000 feet east of a natural gas
compressor station and was damaged resulting in a release of a portion of its contents. This AST is within
a lined and bermed area; however, the liner was observed to have deteriorated and was essentially
ineffective. This site was considered to be an REC.

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-37

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

The natural gas compressor station was observed to have experienced a release, and cleanup methods to
address the leak were observed to be insufficient. The compressor station and surrounding soils are
considered to be an REC. Additionally, two open topped containers of petroleum were observed adjacent
to the compressor station and, as such, presented a material threat of release. The containers and the
compressor station were considered to be RECs.
Two transformers on the site could not be discounted as containing PCBs. No placarding was observed on
either transformer. As such, these transformers were assumed to contain PCBs and were considered
RECs. Appendix G contains the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (July 2015) for the Roxana site.
Following recommendations contained in the Phase I, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was
conducted in November 2015 and concluded in February 2016 to assess the conditions at each of the
aforementioned RECs (see Appendix G, Environmental Site Assessments). Soil samples were collected
and analyzed to determine the absence or presence of environmental contamination both in vertical and
horizontal contexts, as appropriate. Groundwater was not encountered during sample collected so no
groundwater samples were collected or analyzed. The results of the soil chemical analyses were compared
to the USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), used in accordance with 401 KAR 100:030,
Remediation Requirements, and with standards established by the Commonwealth of Kentucky to
determine the absence/presence of contaminants of concern.
Arsenic was detected in all soil samples collected at the identified RECs at concentrations well above the
USEPA RSL. With regards to inorganic compounds (i.e., metals), the Commonwealth of Kentucky
provides guidance for establishing background concentrations in the Kentucky Guidance for Ambient
Background Assessment (January 8, 2004; as found in KDEP 2009, Appendix B). According to the
Kentucky Guidance, surface and subsurface site data should be compared with the generic statewide
ambient background numbers and the following three criteria should be used to demonstrate whether or
not the site data is background (i.e., not attributable to an identifiable release):
1. The mean site concentration for inorganic constituents must be below the 95 percent Upper
Confidence Limit (UCL) of the mean concentrations of background for inorganic constituents
2. At least half of the data points should be less than the 60th percentile
3. No data points should be above the upper bound value (95th percentile)
Table 5-17 presents the background concentration numbers for Kentucky for arsenic.
Table 5-17. Generic Statewide Ambient Background Concentrations for Arsenic
Mean
(µg/kg)
8,900

95% UCL of Mean
(µg/kg)
9,400

60th Percentile
(µg/kg)
8,300

90th Percentile
(µg/kg)
21,200

Note: µg/kg = micrograms per kilogram.
Source: KDEP 2009, Appendix B.

Arsenic concentrations in the collected samples for the RECs ranged between “Not Detected” and 7,790
µg/kg. Because all of the detected arsenic values fall below the mean generic statewide ambient
background concentration, the 95 percent UCL of mean, the 60th percentile, and the 95th percentile,
arsenic concentrations can be attributed to background conditions and, as such, arsenic is not a
contaminant of concern on the Roxana site.

5-38

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

The results of the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment also indicated that soils at three of the REC
locations on the Roxana site have been adversely impacted by petroleum: the AST open drain valve, the
damaged AST, and the natural gas compressor station. Exceedances of Kentucky petroleum standards, as
set forth in 401 KAR 100:030 for petroleum releases not regulated under the underground storage tank
program, were observed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons at each of these locations. Contaminated soils
on these cited areas of the subject property are limited to the top 2 feet of soil or less and are not
considered hazardous or require special handling (Cardno 2016b).
5.12.1.2

Hazardous Wastes

No hazardous wastes are known to be stored on the Roxana site or generated in this area. According to the
USEPA’s “Cleanups In My Community” mapping tool, there are no Brownfield, Superfund, or RCRA
Corrective Action sites in the vicinity of the Roxana site. No sites in the town of Roxana were listed in the
USEPA’s TSCA, TRI, or RCRA databases. Three sites were listed in the USEPA’s RCRA database:
Roxana BP, Coastal Coal Company LLC, and Enterprise Mining Company LLC. The Roxana BP site is a
service station located approximately 500 feet east of the proposed Roxana site and is unlikely to impact
site conditions based on the topography and inferred hydrology of the area. The Coastal Coal and
Enterprise Mining sites are located over a mile to the east of the proposed Roxana site and are also
unlikely to impact site conditions based on the topography and inferred hydrology of the area. Site visits
conducted in 2011, 2013, and 2014 did not observe any hazardous wastes or evidence of their presence
(i.e., stressed vegetation, stained soils, drums, batteries) on the site and no evidence of acid mine drainage
was observed.
Coal mining occurs in Letcher County; however, no active mining sites are located in the vicinity of the
proposed Roxana site. Maps of active mines in Kentucky prepared by the Kentucky Department of
Energy Development and Independence and the Kentucky Geological Survey were reviewed (KGS 2015)
and cross referenced with maps prepared by the Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System to
determine their current status. No currently active mines were found within a 1-mile radius of the
proposed correctional facility site. Therefore, coal mining in the area does not affect the environment of
the Roxana site.
Additional investigations using the Coal Impoundment Location and Information System (National
Technology Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit University 2009) also indicate that there are no active
coal mines, coal processing facilities, or waste disposal sites on the Roxana site or within a 1-mile radius
of the proposed site. According to the Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System (2008) mine reports,
the mines close to the Roxana site are abandoned. While coal is processed at the Old House Branch mine
over a mile away, no combustion or disposal of coal ash or other combustion byproducts occurs at the
site. Once washed, the ore is trucked off-site to generation plants located elsewhere (Mullins 2015).
Additionally, the Old House Branch impoundment is contained within a topographic ridge along its
western side while the loading facility is located at a substantially lower elevation than the proposed
correctional facility. The presence of the ridge between the impoundment and the Roxana site would act
as a barrier and hinder the movement of wind-blown particles generated at the impoundment site. As a
result, any fugitive dust generated by the operations of the Old House Branch mine is unlikely to affect
the environment of the Roxana site.
There is a coal slurry impoundment located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the Roxana site
(Enterprise Mining Company). According to the Coal Impoundment Location and Information System,
5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-39

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

the impoundment has a maximum capacity of 50 acre-feet (2,178,000 cubic feet or 16,292,572 gallons).
According to the U.S. Department of Labor Mine Safety and Health Administration, no violations have
been reported at this facility. In the event of failure, the release of water from this impoundment would
have no direct impacts on the Roxana site as the site is hydrologically and topographically separated from
the impoundment. If the drinking water supply were to be affected the LCWSD would be required to take
steps to meet federal minimum drinking water quality standards.
5.12.1.3

Toxic Substances

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed on the property and several structures were
observed to be present. The structures observed on the Roxana site appear to have been constructed in the
early 1980s and therefore are not likely to contain lead-based paint or asbestos. However, painted items of
undetermined age were observed inside of one structure and may contain lead-based paint.
The USEPA classifies Letcher County as having a moderate potential for radon intrusion (Zone 2). Zone
2 counties have a predicted average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4 pCi/L. The USEPA
action level for radon is 4 pCi/L.
Environmental Consequences
5.12.2.1

Hazardous Materials

Construction activities would require the use of hazardous materials. The majority of the hazardous
materials expected to be used are common to construction and include diesel fuel, gasoline, and propane
to fuel the construction equipment; hydraulic fluids, oils, and lubricants; and batteries. The transport and
use of hazardous materials would have the potential to result in accidental spills that could adversely
impact soil and groundwater on and adjacent to the construction site or along transportation routes.
Hazardous materials associated with construction activities would be delivered and stored in a manner
that would prevent these materials from leaking, spilling, and potentially polluting soils or groundwater,
and in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental and public and occupational
health and safety regulations. With the implementation of appropriate handling and management
procedures, hazardous materials used during construction would have no significant impacts to the
environment.
Operation of the proposed correctional facility would require the use of batteries, pesticides, herbicides,
paints, solvents, and fluorescent light fixtures. Paints, solvents, pesticides, and herbicides would be used
up, and thus, not require disposal. Pesticides and herbicides would be used as part of routine grounds and
facility maintenance and would be applied and managed in accordance with applicable regulations and
manufacturer instructions. Those hazardous materials that do require disposal would be properly managed
and stored in accordance with federal and state regulations. As a result, operation of the proposed
correctional facility would have less than significant impacts with regards to hazardous materials.
The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment identified that soils at three of the REC locations on the
Roxana site have been adversely impacted by petroleum. All areas affected by petroleum releases would
be cleaned up to acceptable federal and state standards prior to construction of the proposed federal
correctional facility. Specifically, remediation of the petroleum releases would be achieved through
removal of the contaminants to acceptable levels based on the current update of the USEPA RSLs and the
procedures outlined for ASTs and surface releases in DEP 7079C, Closure Report for Petroleum Releases
and Exempt Petroleum Tank Systems (KDEP 2009). Upon decommissioning of the petroleum extraction
5-40

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

operation, the identified contaminated soils would be excavated and disposed of at a permitted disposal
facility (i.e., a soil recycling facility or landfill permitted to accept petroleum contaminated soil). The
walls and floor of all excavated areas would be sampled to demonstrate compliance with Kentucky
cleanup standards for petroleum hydrocarbons in residential areas as per DEP 7079C, Table B. All
reports, analytical results, mapping, chain of custody forms, and waste manifests would be submitted to
the KDEP, Division of Waste Management, Superfund Branch-Petroleum Cleanup Section in accordance
with the procedures outlined for clean closure of ASTs and surface releases in DEP 7079C.
5.12.2.2

Hazardous Wastes

Hazardous waste would be generated during construction activities and would include but not be limited
to empty containers, spent solvents, waste oil, spill cleanup materials (if used), and lead-acid batteries
from construction equipment. Construction contractors would be responsible for safely removing these
construction-generated wastes from the construction site and for arranging for recycling or disposal in
accordance with applicable regulations. The total monthly generation of hazardous waste during
construction is anticipated to be less than 100 kilograms during a calendar month. The construction
contractor would be responsible for determining their regulatory status regarding hazardous waste
generation during construction, and obtaining and maintaining compliance in accordance with federal and
state laws. Hazardous wastes associated with construction activities would be handled and stored in a
manner that would minimize human exposure to these materials and prevent these materials from
polluting soils or groundwater, and in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental
and human health and safety regulations. Adherence to these policies, procedures, and regulations would
minimize the potential impacts from exposure and accidental releases during construction. In the event of
an accidental release, contaminated media would be treated on-site or would be promptly removed and
disposed of in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. With the implementation of
appropriate handling and management procedures, hazardous wastes generated during construction would
have no significant impacts to the environment.
Operation of the USP and FPC is anticipated to generate small volumes of hazardous waste such as
petroleum, oils, lubricants, solvents, and batteries. Hazardous wastes would be properly managed and
stored in accordance with federal and state regulations. As a result, operation of the proposed correctional
facility would have less than significant impacts with regards to hazardous wastes.
The outdoor firing range at the proposed USP and FPC would be used an average of once a month for
small arms training and maintenance, and would include the use of lead bullets. The range would be
designed according to Bureau Technical Design Guidelines, which require incorporating safety baffles,
berms, and backstops to contain bullets to a designated area. Impoundments, traps, and other structures
would catch lead particles. The design of the firing range would also include stormwater systems to
gather runoff and allow infiltration within the range bermed area. This aids in preventing contamination
outside of the range itself. To ensure this feature continues to work, regular range maintenance would
include adding more soil to the berm and ensuring it is seeded with grass. If there is cause, the berm soil
would be sifted to remove the lead. The lead would then be recycled and the soil replaced on the range
berm. Bureau institutions with an active firing range use the web-based software TRI-Me to report
releases of lead to USEPA. Therefore, firing range operations would have no significant impacts to the
environment.

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

5-41

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

5.12.2.3

Toxic Substances

Under Alternative 2, facilities intended for human occupancy would be designed to prevent occupant
exposures to radon above the USEPA action level of 4 pCi/L. Therefore, there would not be adverse
impacts associated with radon under Alternative 2.
No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would be the same as that described in Section 4.12.3.
Mitigation
Alternative 2 would have no significant impacts to hazardous materials and wastes; therefore, no
mitigation is required.

5-42

5.0 Alternative 2 – Roxana
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

6.0

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USE OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY

Regulations for the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements require they address the relationship
between short-term use of the environment and the maintenance of long-term productivity.
Construction of proposed facilities on the site would last an estimated 36 to 48 months following groundbreaking. Construction would involve clearing and grubbing, excavating and filling, paving, erecting
structures, installation of lighting and signage, and landscaping. There would also be temporary
disruptions to traffic associated with construction vehicles and equipment utilizing area roadways. It is
anticipated that disruptions would be temporary and that construction and operation of the proposed USP
and FPC would generate economic productivity in terms of new construction jobs, new payrolls, induced
personal income, purchasing of materials, supplies, and services, and potential purchasing of new homes
by Bureau staff once the facility opens.
The economic viability of the Letcher County, Kentucky region would experience long-term benefits by
virtue of the approximately 300 new permanent jobs that would need to be filled at the USP and FPC.

6.0 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity
March 2016

6-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

6-2

6.0 Relationship Between Short-Term Use and Long-Term Productivity
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

7.0

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF
RESOURCES

Regulations for the preparation of EISs also require they address irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources associated with the proposed action. Construction and operation of the
proposed USP and FPC would result in both direct and indirect commitments of resources. In some cases,
resources committed would be recovered in a relatively short period of time. In other cases resources
would be irreversibly or irretrievably committed by virtue of being consumed or by the apparent
limitlessness of the period of their commitment to a specific use. Irreversible and irretrievable
commitments of resources can sometimes be compensated for by the provision of similar resources with
substantially the same use or value.
Under the proposed action only a portion of the site would be required for the actual construction of the
USP and FPC. Resources consumed as a result of the development of the correctional facility would be
offset by the creation of the facility and the resulting societal benefits. The use of the developed portion of
the land could be considered irretrievably committed. The proposed action would also require the
commitment of various construction materials, including cement, aggregate, steel, asphalt, and lumber.
There is the potential, however, that these materials could be recycled at some point in the future;
therefore, they may not be an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources.
The proposed action would also require the consumption of fossil fuels and electrical energy during both
the construction and operation of the facility and would be considered an irretrievable commitment of
these resources.
Costs associated with roadway and utility improvements to serve the site are not precisely known at this
time; however, these costs would be offset by the direct economic benefits of the total project-related
expenditures and the annual operating budget. Over the long term, construction of the proposed facility
could result in an increase in the pace of development within Letcher County than would occur if the
project were not constructed. Although the nature of such development can be controlled through the
application of land use regulations, any induced land development is for all practical purposes, an
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of land and materials.

7.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
March 2016

7-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

7-2

7.0 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

8.0

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

This chapter (1) describes past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions relevant to cumulative
impacts, (2) analyzes the incremental interaction the proposed action may have with other actions, and,
(3) evaluates cumulative impacts potentially resulting from these interactions. The definition of
cumulative impacts was discussed in Section 3.13, Cumulative Impact Analysis.

PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE ACTIONS
This section identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions not related to the proposed
action that have the potential to cumulatively impact the resources in the affected environment for the
proposed action and its regionally affected area. Geographic distribution, intensity, duration, and
historical effects of similar activities are considered when determining whether a particular activity may
contribute cumulatively and significantly to the impacts of Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 on the resources
identified in the EIS. Based on discussions with the economic development leaders for Letcher County,
development within the county has not been strong and there are very few past, present, or reasonably
foreseeable future actions that when combined with the proposed action would result in cumulative
impacts to the resources evaluated in this Revised Final EIS (DePriest 2016). An ongoing project in the
area is the Gateway Regional Business Park. One future project identified includes a new regional airport.
In addition to these projects, there are infrastructure and utility projects associated with the proposed
action that have the potential to result in cumulative impacts.
Gateway Regional Business Park
The Gateway Regional Business Park is approximately 262 acres (106 hectares) located just north of
Payne Gap. The site was developed about 10 years ago and initially included eight businesses; four
businesses are currently operating on the site (DePriest 2016). The original master plan for the business
park accommodated 24 lots (Appalachian Industrial Authority 2004). Construction and operation of the
business park would have potential impacts to land use, topography and soils, socioeconomics,
transportation and traffic, air quality, noise, infrastructure and utilities, and water resources. The Gateway
Regional Business Park has the potential to be incompatible with surrounding land uses; however,
Letcher County does not have any zoning ordinances that would regulate development and compatibility.
Topography and soils would have been impacted as a result of construction activities. An increase in job
opportunities in the area from operation of the businesses would likely have a positive impact on the local
economy. Full development of the business park would likely increase traffic on U.S. Route 119 and may
contribute to impacts to congestion on area roadways. It is anticipated that short-term temporary impacts
to air quality and noise would have occurred as a result of construction activities. Infrastructure and
utilities would have the potential to be impacted due to increased demands on potable water, wastewater
treatment, natural gas, electricity, and solid waste. Additionally, the business park has the potential for
water resources to be impacted by changes to drainage patterns, redirecting or increasing surface water
runoff, and increases to erosion and sedimentation.
Letcher County Airport Project
In 2006, the Letcher County Airport Board applied to be included in the Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA’s) National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems Program and be eligible to receive
FAA funding for the Letcher County Airport project. The Kentucky Department of Aviation funded a site
8.0 Cumulative Impacts
March 2016

8-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

selection study, and based on the study, a site near Isom in the northern part of Letcher County was
identified for development of the airport (Summit Engineering 2008). The site is approximately 11.5
miles from Payne Gap and 8 miles from Roxana. The airport board recently executed a purchase option
for 600 acres. Preparation of an EIS is planned to begin in late 2016 (DePriest 2016). Potential impacts
resulting from the project could include land use, topography, geology, and soils, socioeconomics,
transportation and traffic, air quality, noise, infrastructure and utilities, cultural resources, water resources,
and biological resources. Siting of the airport may have impacts to land use compatibility with adjacent
land uses. Excavation and grading activities to prepare the site for development may result in changes and
impacts to topography, geology, and soils. Development of the airport has the potential to result in shortterm and long-term impacts to traffic as a result of construction vehicles accessing the site during
construction and long-term impacts as a result of increased traffic to area roadways once the airport is
operational. Both short- and long-term impacts to air quality could occur as the result of construction and
operation activities of the airport. Short-term and long-term impacts due to increases in noise would likely
result from construction activities and the operation of aircraft. It is anticipated that infrastructure and
utilities would have increased demands placed on them during construction as well as operation of the
airport. Other impacts that could result due to construction of the airport include cultural, water, and
biological resources. Beneficial impacts to the economy of the region would be anticipated due to new
jobs and potential tax base.
Infrastructure and Utility Projects
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would both require utility companies to upgrade facilities, extend cable,
and construct new facilities to provide service to the proposed USP, FPC, and ancillary facilities. These
projects would be dependent on the preferred alternative and conducted by the individual utility company.
Letcher County has several future sewer extension projects planned, two in Jenkins and three in
Whitesburg (Kentucky Infrastructure Authority 2015). These projects would provide service to residents
with failing septic systems or to those using direct discharge to waterways via straight pipes. The City of
Jenkins also has a future project for sewer line repairs and improvements to the WWTP that will reduce
inflow and improve capacity of the plant. The future projects are designed to provide for expansion of the
Gateway Regional Business Park. These projects are reasonably foreseeable in the future, but have not
been funded. Letcher County has many residents using illegal straight pipes that have not yet been
included in future sewer projects. These residential areas may ultimately be included in future wastewater
infrastructure planning.
Impacts associated with these projects have the potential to include land use, soils, air quality, noise,
infrastructure and utilities, cultural resources, water resources, and biological resources. The projects have
the potential to be incompatible with surrounding land use, disturb soils that could result in erosion and
sedimentation issues, result in temporary increases to air emissions and temporary air quality impacts,
result in temporary noise impacts due to construction activities, and impact cultural, biological, and water
resources depending on the type and location of the upgrade or new construction and placement of cable.
The projects would also result in a cumulative impact on the demand for wastewater treatment.
Proposed Action
Implementation of the proposed action would have potential impacts to land use, topography, geology,
and soils, socioeconomics, transportation and traffic, air quality, noise, infrastructure and utilities, water
resources, and biological resources. The proposed action would result in conversion of land uses. Letcher
8-2

8.0 Cumulative Impacts
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

County does not have any zoning ordinances that would regulate development and compatibility.
Nonetheless, the buffer area to be maintained around the federal correctional facility would be compatible
with adjacent land uses. The proposed action would disturb and redistribute soils and rock, resulting in
significant impacts on topography, geology, and soils within the project area of either Alternative 1 or 2.
These impacts would be managed through the use of appropriate BMPs to prevent erosion and
sedimentation. It is expected the proposed action would have a positive impact on the local economy in
terms of employment and income. The proposed action would result in temporary traffic impacts during
construction, and post-construction increases in traffic associated with the operation of the federal
correctional facility at either alternative site. The proposed action would also contribute to short-term
temporary increases to noise, and increase local air emissions, as well as have an overall contribution to
greenhouse gases (GHGs). The proposed action would result in a significant impact to potable water
capacity, wastewater treatment capacity, and natural gas infrastructure under Alternative 1. Under
Alternative 2, the proposed action would have a significant impact to natural gas infrastructure.
Implementation of the proposed action under either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would have adverse
impacts on streams and wetlands. The proposed action would result in impacts to vegetation and to
federally listed bat species and their habitat during construction of the federal correctional facility.
As discussed in Sections 4.6 and 5.6, Air Quality, increases in air emissions for criteria pollutants that
would occur at either site under the proposed action would have no direct or indirect significant impacts
on local or regional air quality. As a result, this cumulative impacts analysis focuses on GHGs. Since
individual sources of GHG emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable effect on climate
change and the potential effects of proposed GHG emissions on climate change are global by nature, the
study area for this aspect is not defined.
GHGs are gases in the Earth’s atmosphere that prevent heat from escaping into space, resulting in climate
change as the Earth’s surface temperature increases above past levels. GHGs result primarily from the
combustion of fossil fuels, and include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). EO 13514, Federal
Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, requires federal agencies to inventory
and report direct and indirect emissions of GHGs, including those associated with fuel consumption and
the purchase of electricity. In addition, facilities with stationary combustion sources must determine
applicability of the USEPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, as promulgated in 40 CFR Part 98,
which requires reporting from facilities that emit 25,000 metric tons CO2 equivalent (CO2e) or more per
year from stationary source fuel combustion. Emission sources evaluated in this Revised Final EIS are
associated with construction and site operations. The primary GHG emission associated with these
sources is CO2, and to a lesser extent, CH4 and N2O. Emissions of these GHGs are carried forward in the
analysis.
GHGs are produced from the burning of fossil fuels, as well as through industrial and biological
processes. There are no published NEPA thresholds of significance for GHG emissions resulting from a
proposed action and formulation of thresholds is difficult when attempting to identify what level of
emissions would substantially contribute to global climate change. The cumulative effects for GHG
emissions were evaluated for the proposed construction and subsequent operation activities. Detailed
calculations can be found in Appendix C, Air Emissions Calculations.
Table 8-1 presents the GHG emissions associated with the proposed construction activities at the Payne
Gap site. The estimated GHG emissions from the proposed construction activities at the Payne Gap site
8.0 Cumulative Impacts
March 2016

8-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

are considerably less than the 25,000 metric ton per year reference point recommended for quantitative
disclosure by the CEQ (CEQ 2014). In addition to GHGs that would be generated by the operation of
equipment during construction, there is also the overall reduction in carbon sequestration capability that
would be the result of the loss of 218 acres (88 hectares) of vegetation that would need to be cleared in
order to develop the site. After the site is developed, a portion of it would be re-vegetated with trees,
although the portion that can be re-vegetated would be a fraction of the total acreage. As a result,
approximately 200 acres (81 hectares) of long-term carbon storage would be permanently lost, which is
an estimated annual storage loss of 3,893 metric tons of CO2 using the method developed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service to calculate carbon sequestration in a forest
approximately 25 years old (Smith et al. 2006).
Table 8-1. Estimated GHG Emissions from Construction
Activities at Payne Gap Site
Year
1
2

CO2e
(metric tons per year)
10,913
10,913

Table 8-2 presents the GHG emissions associated with the proposed construction activities at the Roxana
site. The estimated GHG emissions from the proposed construction activities at the Roxana site are
considerably less than the 25,000 metric ton per year reference point for quantitative disclosure
recommended by the CEQ (CEQ 2014). In addition to GHGs that would be generated by the operation of
equipment during construction, there is also the overall reduction in carbon sequestration capability that
would result from the loss of 161 acres (65 hectares) of vegetation that would be cleared during site
development. After the site is developed, a portion of it would be re-vegetated with trees, although the
portion that can be re-vegetated would be a fraction of the total acreage. As a result, approximately 150
acres (61 hectares) of long-term carbon storage would be permanently lost, which is an estimated annual
storage loss of 2,919 metric tons of CO2 using the method developed by the USDA Forest Service to
calculate carbon sequestration in a forest approximately 25 years old (Smith et al. 2006).
Table 8-2. Estimated GHG Emissions from Construction
Activities at Roxana Site
Year
1
2

CO2e
(metric tons per year)
4,006
4,006

The GHG emissions associated with the proposed operation of stationary sources (boilers and emergency
generators) and staff commuter emissions once the facilities are operational would be approximately
1,271 metric tons per year. These emissions, which would occur throughout the life of the operating
facility, are well below the 25,000 ton per year quantitative threshold recommended for analysis by the
CEQ.
Individual sources of anthropogenic GHG emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable effect on
climate change. For this reason, emissions of GHGs from the proposed action alone would not cause
appreciable global warming that would lead to climate change. These emissions would increase the
atmosphere’s concentration of GHGs, and, in combination with past and future emissions from all other
sources, contribute incrementally to the global warming that produces the adverse effects of climate
8-4

8.0 Cumulative Impacts
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

change. As such, a net small, adverse impact would result from the development and operation of the
proposed action.
Potential Cumulative Impacts
8.1.5.1

Land Use

When past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are analyzed together, there would be
changes to land use from projects in Letcher County. The proposed action would likely contribute to
permanent impacts to land use. However, Letcher County does not have any zoning ordinances regulating
development and compatibility. Nonetheless, under the proposed action, land use compatibility issues
with adjacent properties would be minimized through the siting of the facility and use of buffer areas to
reduce potential incompatibility issues with surrounding residences and forested/undeveloped areas.
Implementation of either Alternative 1 or 2 along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects would result in cumulative impacts to land use; however, the impacts would not be significant.
8.1.5.2

Topography, Geology, and Soils

Excavation and grading activities associated with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects would impact topography, geology, and soils. Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 in conjunction with
these other projects would result in significant impacts to topography, geology, and soils. However,
erosion and sedimentation controls would be employed for all construction projects as required by federal
and state regulations, and the impacts would be managed through the use of appropriate BMPs.
When past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects are analyzed together with Alternative 1 or
Alternative 2, there would be an overall positive impact to the socioeconomics of the region. Except for
the infrastructure and utility projects, the cumulative projects would have short- and long-term beneficial
economic impacts. It is assumed that short-term jobs would be created in the construction of facilities for
the projects, and long-term jobs would be created for their operation. It is anticipated the projects would
bring additional residents and workers who would likely spend money in the local area, resulting in
beneficial cumulative impacts on the local and regional economy. The proposed action would be expected
to result in a minor increase in population when considered in conjunction with the cumulative projects.
8.1.5.3

Traffic and Transportation

Located in northern Letcher County, the proposed Letcher County Airport is unlikely to have the potential
to interact with the proposed action under either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 and would not
cumulatively impact traffic in the vicinity of Payne Gap or Roxana. The infrastructure and utility projects
are not likely to result in traffic increases. However, there would be potential cumulative traffic impacts
from the Gateway Regional Business Park in conjunction with Alternative 1. Regular traffic would be
expected on U.S. Route 119 during weekday business hours in association with operation of the
businesses at the Gateway Regional Business Park. Under Alternative 1, potential impacts to traffic on
U.S. Route 119 may occur during a.m. and p.m. peak periods. However, the potential impact to traffic
would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of mitigation outlined in the
Traffic Impact Study (Appendix F). Therefore, while Alternative 1 may contribute to cumulative impacts,
mitigation measures would be in place and the cumulative impact would be considered less than
significant.

8.0 Cumulative Impacts
March 2016

8-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

8.1.5.4

Air Quality

The past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in conjunction with the proposed action have
the potential to contribute to changes in air quality. The majority of the impacts would be short-term
construction impacts from the Gateway Regional Business Park and infrastructure and utility projects,
which may occur during the same time period as the federal correctional facility construction. Neither the
business park nor the infrastructure and utility projects would have long-term impacts to air quality. The
Letcher County Airport project would likely have long-term operational emissions. The amount of
emissions for any of the criteria pollutants is not known at this time, and would be dependent on the type
and frequency of aircraft operations at the airport. The proposed action would not significantly impact
local or regional air quality; therefore, in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects, the proposed action would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts to air quality.
8.1.5.5

Noise

There is potential for construction of additional businesses at the Gateway Regional Business Park or
certain infrastructure and utility projects to overlap with the construction of the proposed action.
Therefore, there would be potential for cumulative noise impacts in the vicinity of either Payne Gap or
Roxana from construction activities and construction vehicles traveling to/from project sites. Construction
activities would be limited during certain days and hours during the week to minimize impacts. These
cumulative impacts would be temporary and not significant. Operations of the federal correctional facility
in conjunction with the cumulative projects would generate some level of noise, but any increase in
ambient noise levels would not be significant. Increases in noise levels would be anticipated from aircraft
operations at the Letcher County Airport; however, these impacts would be considered infrequent.
Implementation of the proposed action along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects would not result in significant cumulative noise impacts.
8.1.5.6

Infrastructure and Utilities

The proposed action would contribute to cumulative impacts on infrastructure and utility demand.
Cumulative wastewater treatment demand under Alternative 1 would considerably exceed the capacity of
the Jenkins WWTP; therefore, cumulative impacts to wastewater treatment capacity would be significant
under Alternative 1.
The demand for treatment of wastewater under Alternative 2 would increase the Whitesburg WWTP to
approximately 87 percent of its current design capacity; therefore, Alternative 2 combined with
reasonably foreseeable future projects would potentially exceed the capacity of the plant and be a
significant impact. However, most of the future projects in the Whitesburg service area currently do not
have funding and have not been programmed for construction. The effort to include the existing pending
projects and any potential future projects requires extensive planning and would need to be approved
through the facilities planning and approval process (Nesbitt 2015). The region prepares a facilities plan
approximately every 10 years. The city of Whitesburg is currently in the initial phase of this 10-year
planning process (Nesbitt 2015).
Furthermore, the Kentucky River Area Development District 2012–2013 Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy Update included planning for infrastructure for a new federal prison. Currently,
there is ample capacity to handle the flow from Alternative 2, as wastewater flow from the proposed
prison was incorporated into the design of the plant. The existing plant was designed to accommodate
8-6

8.0 Cumulative Impacts
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

expansion in the future. The WWTP site was selected for its ample space for expansion. Plans for this
expansion and an approach to the connection of the illegal straight pipes and any other approved
extensions will be incorporated in the next regional facilities plan (Nesbitt 2015). The timing of the future
sewer projects and future planning for expansion of the Whitesburg WWTP would minimize the
cumulative impacts of Alternative 2.
8.1.5.7

Water Resources

Implementation of the proposed action along with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
projects would disturb soils and would result in temporary increases in soil disturbance and potential soil
erosion and a permanent increase in impervious surfaces in the area, with a consequential increase in
stormwater runoff. Implementation of BMPs as parts of an erosion and sediment control plan and
groundwater protection plan for construction of the proposed action would minimize these impacts. Under
Kentucky regulations, the Letcher County Airport, and likely also the Gateway Regional Business Park,
would require a groundwater protection plan. This assessment assumes these projects would implement
BMPs to limit erosion and runoff. Therefore, cumulative impacts to local water resources would not be
significant.
The proposed action would adversely affect an estimated 10,512 linear feet of streams and 2.4 acres (0.97
hectares) of wetlands under Alternative 1, and approximately 4,117 linear feet of streams and 2.45 acres
(1.0 hectares) of wetlands under Alternative 2. As part of its Section 404 permit from the USACE, the
Bureau would pay into an in-lieu fee fund to mitigate the impacts under the preferred alternative
(Alternative 2). The mitigation would reduce the direct impacts to less than significant. Direct impacts to
wetlands and streams by the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future construction projects
are unknown. Given the size of the projects, particularly the Letcher County Airport, impacts to wetlands
or streams would be expected. Compliance with federal regulations for wetlands and stream impacts
would require full mitigation of impacts. As a result, cumulative impacts would not be significant.
8.1.5.8

Biological Resources

The proposed action would involve ground disturbing activities and tree clearing for construction of new
facilities. Direct impacts to forested land would comprise an estimated 218 acres (88 hectares) under
Alternative 1, and an estimated 118 acres (48 hectares) under Alternative 2. When considered
cumulatively, it is anticipated that the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area
would result in the development of several hundred acres of land in Letcher County. Much of this land is
forested. The cumulative loss of several hundred acres of forest would constitute a loss of a small fraction
of forested land within the 338 square mile land area of Letcher County, and is not considered to be
significant.
Construction-related noise has the potential to temporarily disturb wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the
project areas. Permanent impacts to wildlife would result from the cumulative loss of habitat from
construction of the proposed action and cumulative projects in the area. Wildlife species would be
permanently displaced by the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, however, suitable
habitat would be available on adjacent land areas. Under the proposed action, more than two-thirds of the
project site under either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2 would remain undisturbed and continue to provide
habitat for wildlife species found on-site. Therefore, cumulative impacts to wildlife would not be
significant.
8.0 Cumulative Impacts
March 2016

8-7

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

The proposed action has the potential to impact summer roosting habitat and winter hibernaculum of the
Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat under Alternative 1, and the summer roosting habitat of both bats
under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, the Bureau would mitigate the direct
impacts to the Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat by paying into the Imperiled Bat Conservation
Fund. Conservation measures would also be implemented to minimize potential indirect impacts to these
bat species from site lighting. Cumulative impacts to both bat species and their habitat could result from
construction and operation of the Letcher County Airport; however, specific impacts are not known at this
time. If mitigation and conservation measures are implemented for the Letcher County Airport project, it
is anticipated that the cumulative impacts to Indiana bat and northern long-eared bat would not be
considered significant.

8-8

8.0 Cumulative Impacts
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

9.0

REFERENCES

Appalachian Industrial Authority. 2004. Gateway Business Park Site Plan.
Appalachian Regional Healthcare (ARH). 2014. Analysis of Whitesburg ARH Hospital Services. April
15.
Cardno. 2014a. Enhanced Utilities Report Letcher County, Kentucky. Prepared for the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Washington, DC. October.
Cardno. 2014b. Historic Architectural Resources Survey for a Proposed Federal Correctional Facility,
Letcher County, Kentucky. Prepared for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC.
February.
Cardno. 2014c. Draft Supplemental Jurisdictional Delineation Payne Gap and Roxana Sites. Prepared for
the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC. August.
Cardno. 2016a. Results of Investigation of Materials to be Excavated at the Proposed United States
Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp, Roxana Site, Letcher County, Kentucky. Prepared for the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC. January.
Cardno. 2016b. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed United States Penitentiary and
Federal Prison Camp, Roxana, Letcher County, Kentucky. Prepared for the Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Washington, DC. February.
Copperhead Environmental Consulting. 2015. Desktop Analysis and Habitat Survey for the Indiana Bat
(Myotis sodalis), Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens), and Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis
septentrionalis) at two Sites for a Proposed Federal Correctional Facility in Letcher County, KY.
Prepared for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC. January.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice, Guidance Under the National
Environmental Policy Act. December 10.
CEQ. 2014. Revised Draft Guidance on the Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects
of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews. December.
DePriest, Joe. 2013. Economic Development Director, Letcher County. Personal communication.
DePriest, Joe. 2016. Economic Development Director, Letcher County. Personal communication, March
9.
Division of Planning. 2011. Kentucky Transportation Cabinet: Traffic Station Counts, Letcher County.
February.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR). 2015. The EDR Radius Map™ Report With Geocheck. June 16,
2015.
Federal Bureau of Prisons (Bureau). 2009. Categorical Exclusion: Proposed Electrified Fence Project,
United States Penitentiary - Martin County, Kentucky. July 21.

9.0 References
March 2016

9-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map Letcher County,
Kentucky and Incorporated Areas. Map number 21133C0140C. March 18.
Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Highway Traffic Noise: Construction Noise Handbook,
Chapter 9.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook09.cfm. Last
updated July 5, 2011, accessed March 7, 2013.
Fleming Neon Fire Department. 2013. Scott Collins, Captain. Personal communication, September 4.
Fleming Neon Police Department. 2013. Mike Dingus, Chief of Police. Personal communication,
September 4.
Hall, L.S., P.R. Krausman, and M.L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard
terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173–182.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). 2012. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. Washington, DC.
Jenkins Police Department. 2013. Todd DePriest, Public Safety Director for the City of Jenkins. Personal
communication, September 4.
Jenkins Volunteer Fire Station. 2013. Todd DePriest, Public Safety Director for the City of Jenkins.
Personal communication, September 4.
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KDEP). 1994. Division of Water: Groundwater
Branch. Groundwater Sensitivity Regions of Kentucky. Retrieved from
http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsweb/download/wrs/sensitivity.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2013.
KDEP. 2009. Instruction Booklet for DEP 7097C [Closure Report for Petroleum Releases and Exempt
Petroleum Tank Systems]. Division of Waste Management, Superfund Branch – Petroleum
Cleanup Section, Frankfort, Kentucky. October.
KDEP. 2013. Division of Water, Total Maximum Daily Load Program.
http://water.ky.gov/waterquality/Pages/303dList.aspx. Accessed July 17, 2013.
KDEP. 2015. Division of Water Public Notification. KDEP Energy and Environment Cabinet, Drinking
Water Compliance Section, Frankfort, Kentucky. Accessed at
http://water.ky.gov/DrinkingWater/Pages/PublicNotification.aspx.
Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2013. Species Information; Species Observations
for Letcher County. http://fw.ky.gov/kfwis/speciesInfo/countyList.asp?strGroup=3. Accessed
July 22, 2013.
Kentucky Geological Survey (KGS). 2013. Kentucky Geologic Map Information Service. University of
Kentucky, Lexington. http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsmap/kgsgeoserver/viewer.asp. Accessed July 17,
2013.
KGS. 2015. Kentucky Energy Infrastructure. Kentucky Department for Energy Development and
Independence and Kentucky Geological Survey. http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsmap/KYCoal/viewer.asp.
Accessed December 18, 2015.
9-2

9.0 References
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Kentucky Heritage Council (KHC). 2011. Letter from Linda Casebier, Acting Executive Director and
State Historic Preservation Officer, to Bridgette Lyles, Site Selection Specialist, Bureau of
Prisons, regarding the Architectural Resource Reconnaissance Survey, Letcher County,
Kentucky. September 13.
KHC. 2014. Letter from Craig A. Potts, Executive Director and State Historic Preservation Officer, to
Issac Gaston, Capacity Planning and Site Selection Branch, Bureau of Prisons, regarding the
Historic Architectural Resources Survey, for Proposed Federal Correctional Facility, Letcher
County, Kentucky. April 24.
Kentucky Infrastructure Authority. 2015. Kentucky Wastewater Mapping, Project Profiles.
http://kygeonet.ky.gov/kia/cw/index.html. Accessed October 20, 2015.
Kentucky Labor Market Information (KYLMI). 2014. Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment for
Letcher County, Kentucky in Multiple Time Periods.
https://kylmi.ky.gov/vosnet/analyzer/results.aspx?session=labforce. Accessed November 5.
Kentucky Mine Mapping Information System. 2008. http://minemaps.ky.gov/. Last updated September
18, 2008. Accessed December 18, 2015.
Kentucky River Area Development District (KRADD). 2013. Comprehensive Economic Development
Strategy Update, FY 2012–2013, Mapping the Progress of the Kentucky River Area Economy.
Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission. 2014. County Report of Endangered, Threatened, and
Special Concern Plants, Animals, and Natural Communities of Kentucky. Kentucky State Nature
Preserves Commission, Frankfort. August.
Kentucky State Police. 2013. Claude Little, Investigative Lieutenant. Personal communication, September
4.
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC). 2014a. Functional Classification.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/Functional-Classification.aspx. Accessed September
30.
KYTC. 2014b. Traffic Station Counts. http://transportation.ky.gov/planning/pages/count-maps.aspx.
Accessed September 30.
KYTC. 2014c. Truck Weight Limits on State-Maintained Routes.
http://apps.transportation.ky.gov/HIS_Reports/TruckWeightLimitsParam.aspx. Accessed
November 6.
KYTC. 2015. Kentucky Truck Weight Classification.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Documents/Weight%20Class.pdf.
Kings Creek Volunteer Fire Department. 2015. Robert Meade, Fire Chief. Personal communication,
March 12.
Laurel Ridge Landfill. 2014. Bruce Crouch, Manager. Personal communication, March 6.
Letcher County Fire and Rescue. 2013. John Amburgey, EMS Lieutenant. Personal communication,
September 7.
9.0 References
March 2016

9-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Letcher County Sheriff. 2013. Eugene Slone, Victims Advocate for Letcher County. Personal
communication, September 4.
Letcher County Water and Sewer District (LCWSD). 2014. Water Quality Report for year 2014.
KY0670462.
Lewis, Mark. 2015. Letcher County Water and Sewer District, General Manager. Personal
communication, October 7 and 14.
Midwest Research Institute. 2005. Analysis of the Fine Fraction of Particulate Matter in Fugitive Dust.
October 12.
Mountain Comprehensive Health Corporation. 2015. Services and locations.
http://www.mountaincomprehensivehealth.com/about.html. Accessed August 17, 2015.
Mullins, Paul. 2015. Director of Land Management, Enterprise Mining. Personal communication,
September 25.
National Technology Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit University. 2009. Coal Impoundment Location
and Information System. http://coalimpoundment.nttc.edu/locate/list.asp. Accessed September 2,
2015.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2013. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed July 19, 2013.
Natureserve. 2013a. Explorer: Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens), Ecology and Life History.
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Myotis+grisescens.
Accessed July 19, 2013.
Natureserve. 2013b. Explorer: Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis), Ecology and Life History.
http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Myotis+sodalis. Accessed
July 19, 2013.
Nesbitt, Paul. 2015. Whitesburg City Engineer, Personal communication, October 2.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 2013. General Industry Digest. OSHA 220105R 2013.
Parsons. 2015. Federal Correctional Facility Environmental Impact Statement, Draft Traffic Impact
Study. April.
Proximity One. 2014. Demographic Trends 2010–2060. http://proximityone.com. Accessed October 13.
Sierra Club. 2015. Coal Ash Waste-Beyond Coal. http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/disposal-ash-waste.
Accessed June 15, 2015.
Smith, James E., Linda S. Heath, Kenneth E. Skog, Richard A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for Calculating
Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Carbon with Standard Estimates for Forest Types of the United
States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Newtown Square, PA. April.
Sparkman, Dena. 2014. CEO Whitesburg ARH Hospital. Personal communication.
9-4

9.0 References
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Summit Engineering. 2008. Preliminary Engineering Report: Roxana Prison Site. Prepared for the
Letcher County Planning Commission. Prepared by Summit Engineering, Lexington, Kentucky.
TEC, Inc. 2011a. Architectural Resource Reconnaissance Survey, Letcher County, Kentucky. Prepared
for the Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC. August.
TEC, Inc. 2011b. Draft Wetland Identification and Delineation Report, Payne Gap/Lawson Site, Letcher
County, Kentucky. Prepared for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC. August.
TEC, Inc. 2011c. Draft Wetland Identification and Delineation Report, Roxana/Meade Farm, Letcher
County, Kentucky. Prepared for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC. August.
TEC, Inc. 2012. Feasibility Study for Proposed Correctional Facility, Letcher County, Kentucky.
Prepared for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Washington, DC. June.
Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. Fifth Edition. Washington, DC.
University of Kentucky. 2013. Kentucky Maps. http://www.uky.edu/KGS/gis/krgweb/. Accessed July 18,
2013.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (online edition).
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Table DP-1, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Summary
File 1. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table.
Accessed November 10, 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Table DP-1, Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010.
Demographic Profile Data.
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF. Accessed
November 10, 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. 2011–2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Table DP03,
Selected Economic Characteristics.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table. Accessed
November 11, 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. 2011–2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Table DP04,
Selected Housing Characteristics.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/rest/dnldController/deliver?_ts=433256505856. Accessed
November 5, 2014.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014c. 2011–2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, Table DP05,
Demographic and Housing Estimates.
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?fpt=table. Accessed
November 6, 2014.
U.S. Department of Commerce. 2014. Bureau of Economic Analysis. BEARFACTS Letcher County,
Kentucky. http://www.bea.gov/REGIONAL/bearfacts/action.cfm?fips=21133&areatype=21133.
Accessed November 6, 2014.

9.0 References
March 2016

9-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and
Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances.
USEPA. 1982. Guidelines for Noise Impact Analysis. April.
USEPA. 2011. National Ambient Air Quality Standards. http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.
USEPA. 2013a. My Waters Mapper. http://watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm/. Accessed July 16, 2013.
USEPA. 2013b. Region 4: Ground Water Protection, Sole Source Aquifers in the Southeast.
http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/groundwater/r4ssa.html. Accessed July 18, 2013.
USEPA. 2015a. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) –Surface Impoundments with High Hazard Potential
Ratings. http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/ccrs-fs/. Accessed June 15.
USEPA. 2015b. Coal Combustion Residuals Impoundment Assessment Reports.
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/industrial/special/fossil/surveys2/index.htm. Accessed June 15.
USEPA. 2015c. Radon. http://www.epa.gov/radon/. Accessed June 1, 2015.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment
Form. March.
USFWS. 2013. Critical Habitat Mapper. http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/flex/crithabMapper.jsp?.
Accessed July 19, 2013.
USFWS. 2014. FWS 2013-B-0627; Federal Bureau of Prisons; proposed federal penitentiary; located in
Letcher County, Kentucky. Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, Frankfort, KY. August 7.
USFWS. 2015a. IPaC [Information for Planning and Conservation] Trust Resource Report.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Accessed December 21, 2015.
USFWS. 2015b. Factsheet, Northern Long-Eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nlebFactSheet.html. June 18.
USFWS. 2015c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for Kentucky
Arrow Darter with 4(d) Rule; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 80:60962–60988.
USFWS. 2015d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Species Status for the
Northern Long-Eared Bat with 4(d) Rule. Federal Register 80: 17974–18033.
Wagoner, Lisa. 2014. Letcher County Schools. Personal communication.
Western Governors’ Association. 2006. WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook. Prepared for Western
Governors’ Association, Denver, CO, by Countess Environmental, Westlake Village, CA.
September 7.
Whitesburg Fire and Rescue. 2013. Benny Bentley, Volunteer Firefighter. Personal communication,
September 4.
Whitesburg Police Department. 2013. Garnet Sexton, City Clerk and Treasurer for Whitesburg. Personal
communication, September 4.
9-6

9.0 References
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Thomas Webber, Branch Chief, Capacity
Planning and Construction
Issac Gaston, Site Selection Specialist
Cardno
Cristina Ailes – Public Involvement Specialist
B.S. Environmental Science
B.A. International Studies
Years of Experience: 7
Scott Barker – Transportation and Traffic
M.S. Civil Engineering/City Planning
Years of Experience: 24
Erika Fuery – Hazardous Materials and Waste
M.S. Environmental Science
Years of Experience: 15
Kathy Hall – Quality Control
B.A Earth and Environmental Sciences
Years of Experience: 18
Lesley Hamilton – Air Quality
B.A. Chemistry
Years of Experience: 27
Deborah Henson – Project Manager
M.S. Geo-environmental Studies
Years of Experience: 17
Joanne Lortie – Socioeconomics
M.A. Economics
Years of Experience: 24
Kathleen Riek – Project Director
B.S. Biology
Years of Experience: 21

10.0 List of Preparers
March 2016

Kimberly Sebestyen – Archaeological Resources
M.A. American Studies
Years of Experience: 21
Abby Shoff – GIS Specialist, Graphics
B.S. Geographical Information Systems
Years of Experience: 2
Lori Thursby – Architectural Resources
M. Architectural History
Years of Experience: 17
Jill Yamaner – Infrastructure and Utilities
M.S. Environmental Engineering
Years of Experience: 22
Dale Nicholson – Grading and Excavation
Modeling
B.S. Civil Engineering
Years of Experience: 35
John Feddock – Quality Control Grading and
Excavation Modeling
M.S. Mining Engineering
Years of Experience:
Sam Moore – Roadway Design and Site Grading
Years of Experience: 35
Dave McChesney – Cut and Fill Modeling
B.S. Mining Engineering
Years of Experience: 31

10-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

10-2

10.0 List of Preparers
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

11.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST
Federal Elected Officials
Senator Mitch McConnell
317 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Representative Harold Rogers
2406 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Senator Rand Paul
124 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
State Elected Officials
Governor Matt Bevin
700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 100
Frankfort, KY 40601

Representative Leslie Combs
245 E. Cedar Drive
Pikeville, KY 41501

Senator Johnny Ray Turner
849 Crestwood Drive
Prestonsburg, KY 41653

Representative John Short
240 Briarwood Lane
Mallie, KY 41836

Local Elected Officials
Mayor James Craft
38 East Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

James Bates
38 East Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Mayor Todd DePriest
P.O. Box 568
Jenkins, KY 41537

Robin Bowen-Watko
27 Della Drive
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Keith Adams
P.O. Box 5
Jeremiah, KY 41826

Larry Everidge
38 East Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Terry Adams
P.O. Box 488
Isom, KY 41824

Jamie Hatton, County Attorney
95 A Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Honorable Edison G. Banks, II
48 East Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Bobby Howard
247 Tunnel Road
Whitesburg, KY 41858

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

11-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Don McCall
156 Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Jim Ward, Letcher County Judge Executive
156 Main Street, Suite 107
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Honorable Kevin R. Mullins
156 Main Street, Suite 101C
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Danny Webb, Sheriff
6 Broadway Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Tom Sexton
38 East Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

John Williams
146 Maryland Drive
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Sheila Short
181 Shady Drive
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Honorable Samuel T. Wright, III
156 Main Street, Suite 205
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Federal Agencies
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – EIS
Filing Section
Heinz Mueller
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303

Lee Andrews
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Kentucky Field Office
330 W Broadway, Suite 265
Frankfort, KY 40601
David Baldridge
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Louisville District
845 Sassafras Creek Road
Sassafras, KY 41759

State Agencies
State Clearinghouse
Ronald T. Price
Executive Staff Advisor
Office of the Commissioner
Department for Environmental Protection
300 Fair Oaks Lane
Frankfort, KY 40604
Local Agencies
Letcher County Economic Development
Joe DePriest
Box 186
Jenkins, KY 41437
11-2

Letcher County Planning Commission
Box 370
Whitesburg, KY 41858

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Letcher County Emergency Management
156 Main Street, Suite 107
Whitesburg, KY 41858
Individuals and Organizations
Barbara Adams
69 Adams Ln
Redfox, KY 41847

Bobby Adams
1797 Highway 343
McRoberts, KY 41835

D Adams
126 Walter Br Rd
Isom, KY 41824

Danielle Adams
P.O Box 568
Jenkins, KY 41537

Danny Adams
P.O. Box 843
Jenkins, KY 41537

Doug Adams
24 Baker Dr
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Frank Adams
309 Seco Dr.
Seco, KY 41849

Hettie Adams
Address Withheld

Larry Adams
P.O. Box 111
Isom, KY 41824

Larry Adams
P.O. Box 1054
Hazard, KY 41702

Paul Adams
63 Arizona Avenue
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Trish Adams
412 Roy Campbell Drive,
Suite 100
Hazard, KY 41701

Wade Adams
1168 Rainbow Valley
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Stephen Amber
P.O. Box 436
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Emily Anderson
159 Corkwood Ln
Mayking, KY 41838

Craig Baily
P.O. Box 67
Isom, KY 41824

Kevin and Courtney Baker
3197 Highway 803
Millstone, KY 41838

Marty Baker
Address Withheld

Shad Baker
P.O. Box 204
Jenkins, KY 41537

Ruth Bamberger
596 River’s Breeze Dr
Ludlow, KY 41016

Bob Banks
4625 Highway 7 South
Letcher, KY 41832

Connie Bates
3267 Highway 15
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Danny and Dionne Bates
44 Steelbridge Rd
Blackey, KY 41804

Davis Banks
234 Boney Banks
Cemetery Rd
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Wendy Bates
126 Big Shelby Creek
Jenkins, KY 41537

Sally Barto
100 Tennessee Avenue
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Duane Beachey
2670 Highway 1148
Isom, KY 41824

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

11-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Dan Berger
Address Withheld

Scottie Billiter
P.O. Box 815
Jenkins, KY 41537

Black Lives Matter Kentucky
3208 W. Broadway
Louisville, KY 40211

Benjamin Blair
53 Log Cabin Dr.
Mayking, KY 41837

Randy Blair
347 Chissom Rd
Jeremiah, KY 41826

Black Lives Matter (Lexington Group)
2369 Aristocracy Circle
Lexington, KY 40509

Teresa Blair
P.O. Box 587
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Daryl Boggs
P.O. Box 806
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Melinda Boggs
334 Highway 3404
Partridge, KY 40862

Zachary Boggs
P.O. Box 974
Pound, VA 24279

Anita Bolt
451 Murphy Street NW
Norton, VA 24273

Thomas Bornes
98 B & O Hill
Jenkins, KY 41537

Chad Bowling
671 Old Long Fork Road
Virgie, KY 41572

Tony Bowling
41 Commercial Dr
Hazard, KY 41701

Bette Braddock
304 Indian Creek Road
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Jeffery Breeding
P.O. Box 442
Neon, KY 41840

Shirley Breeding
Address Withheld

Tim Breeding
P.O. Box 86
Isom, KY 41824

Kinnita Brock
1150 Pert Creek Rd
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Henry Brooks
P.O. Box 279
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Aaron Brown
101 Tolliver Rd
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Charlotte Brown
960 Little Dry Fork
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Nancy Brown
18 Tyler Lane
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Dana Beasley Brown
Kentuckians For The Commonwealth
250 Plaza Dr., Suite 4
Lexington, KY 40503

Regina Brown
4380 Highway 7 South
Blackey, KY 41804

Roland Brown
1141 Doty Creek
Jeremiah, KY 41826

Tracy Brown
16 Tyler Lane
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Ron Brunty
149 Hiram Bailey Loop
Letcher, KY 41832

Dwight Buckley
Address Withheld

Lori Ann Burd
Center for Biological Diversity
Address Withheld

Jack Burkich
79 Mountain View Ave
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Theresa Callihan
9886 Highway 931 South
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Nancy Campbell
40 Windmill Acres
Blackey, KY 41804

11-4

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

William Campbell
31 North Adams Ridge
Hazard, KY 41701

Stephanie Cassell
Address Withheld

Holly Caudill
1119 Highway 1148
Isom, KY 41824

Jill Caudill
P.O. Box 560
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Mike and Joy Caudill
P.O. Box 831
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Reed Caudill
Address Withheld

Sally Caudill
25 Mountain View Ave
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Sandy Caudill
P.O. Box 234
Ermine, KY 41818

William Caudill
1936 Carcassonne Rd
Blackey, KY 41804

David Clark
P.O. Box 902
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Sarah Clark
P.O. Box 319
101 Chestnut St
Berea, KY 40404

Harry Collins
562 Smoot Creek
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Victoria Collins
Address Withheld

Johnny Combs
8141 Highway 15
Isom, KY 41824

Debbie Cook
P.O. Box 1052
Thornton, KY 41855

Rebecca Cook
Address Withheld

Sandra Cook
P.O. Box 336
Mayking, KY 41837

Sandra Cook
Virginia Organizing
703 Concord Ave
Charlottesville, VA 22903

Elwood Cornett
262 Elwood Rd
Blackey, KY 41804

Heather Corbett
P.O. Box 626
Jenkins, KY 41537

Terry Cornett
15844 Highway 160
Linefork, KY 41833

Amy Craft
P.O. Box 8
Mayking, KY 41837

Anna Craft
Address Withheld

Roland Craft
P.O. Box 568
Jenkins, KY 41537

Amy Crawford
P.O. Box 333
Mayking, KY 41837

Sandi Curd
P.O. Box 1738
London, KY 40741

Jean Curry
37 Arlington Circle
Jenkins, KY 41537

Rick Damron
60 Camden Rd
Jenkins, KY 41537

Lisa Daniels
131 Summit Dr
Pikeville, KY 41501

Carol Day
P.O. Box 1106
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Dauphus Day
52 Boggs Hollow
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Joe DePriest
P.O. Box 186
Jenkins, KY 41530

Todd DePriest
P.O. Box 2
Jenkins, KY 41537

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

11-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Michael Dingus
P.O. Box 1224
Jenkins, KY 41537

Daniel Dixon
192 Turkey Creek Road
Hallie, KY 41821

Jennifer Dixon
168 Emory Ln
Blackey, KY 41804

Harlin Eldridge
215 Scarlett Lane
Neon, KY 41840

Hazel Eldridge
172 Breezie Ridge
Hallie, KY 41821

Kim Ellis

Larry Everidge
P.O. Box 844
Whitesburg, KY 41858

James Fields
966 Tolly Br
Hallie, KY 41821

Dr. Preston Elrod

Nell Fields
12225 Highway 160
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Brian Fieldsong
2641 Highway 588
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Bea Fleming
P.O. Box 432
Pound, VA 24279

Brad and Teresa Fleming
P.O. Box 1432
Pound, VA 24279

Dennis Fleming
P.O. Box 280
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Nancy Fleming
P.O. Box 88
Jenkins, KY 41539

Paul Fleming
P.O. Box 88
Jenkins, KY 41537

Charles Frazier
60 Chandler Dr.
Hallie, KY 41821

Doris Jean Frazier
Address Withheld

Alfred Fysste
P.O. Box 428
Isom, KY 41840

Chris Gang
557 Burlew Dr
Charleston, WV 25302

Chris Gang

Codell Gibson
533 Coperhead Lane
Ermine, KY 41815

Deborah Gibson
337 Highway 3401
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Emily Gillespie
373 Henry St
Appalachia, VA 24216

Alana Godner-Abravanel
Hampshire College
893 West St
Amherst, MA 01002

Peggy Green
P.O. Box 263
Jenkins, KY 41537

Michelle Griffin
P.O. Box 304
Mayking, KY 41837

David Halcomb
322 Sackett Loop
Whitesburg, KY 41850

Glenna Halcomb
200 Noras Road
Cornettsville, KY 41731

Brad Hall
3249 N Mayo Trail
Pikeville, KY 41501

Dixie Hall
Address Withheld

Eric Hall
190 Misty Branch
Neon, KY 41840

William and Jennifer Hall
251-C Medical Plaza
Whitesburg, KY 41858

11-6

Radical Action for Mountain Peoples’ Survival

P.O. Box 121
Rock Creek, WV 25174

Eastern Kentucky University
521 Lancaster Ave, Stratton 467
Richmond, KY 40475

Stories from South Central WV

Address Withheld

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

April Hall-Ilone
P.O. Box 488
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Margaret Hammonds
122 Dow Collins Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Margaret Hammonds
Whitaker Bank, Inc.
187 Main St
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Phillip Hampton
P.O. Box 2314
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Robert Hares
Address Withheld

Jill Harmer
Address Withheld

Crystal Hart
P.O. Box 44
Mayking, KY 41837

Jill Hatel
P.O. Box 412
Isom, KY 41824

Douglas and Alice Hayes
20 Bayview Dr.
Jenkins, KY 41537

Gabrielle Helle
150 Rainbow Dr
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Jon Henrikson
3128 Highway 3408
Blackey, KY 41804

Jarrad Hipps
24 Frazier Ave
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Connie Hogg
8371 Highway 160
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Sandy Hogg
Address Withheld

Angie Holbrook
P.O. Box 223
Eolia, KY 40826

Sheila Holbrook
P.O. Box 293
Neon, KY 41840

Robert Holcomb
9538 Highway 15
Isom, KY 41824

Caleb Howard
15 Frazier Ave
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Henry Hughes
700 College Road
Cumberland, KY 40823

Danny and Nancy Ingram
11638 Highway 160
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Carol Ison
Cowan Community Center
81 Sturgill Branch
Whitesburg, KY 41858

James Ison
P.O. Box 149
Isom, KY 41824

Kendall and Carol Ison
5431 Highway 931 South
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Patricia Ison
271 Stallard Road
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Sherwood and Rhoda Ison
9769 Highway 522
Totz, KY 40870

Eliza Jane
P.O. Box 265
Jenkins, KY 41537

Brian Johnson
P.O. Box 1201
Jenkins, KY 41537

James Johnson
953 Sorgon Road
Whitesburg, KY 41815

Tonya Johnson
340 Tyler Ln
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Elizabeth Jones
252 Fairview Ln
Neon, KY 41840

Janet Keating

Ellis Keyes
240 Hospital Road
Whitesburg, KY 41858

James Kincaid
P.O. Box 105
Roxana, KY 41804

Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition

P.O. Box 6753
Huntington, WV 25773

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

11-7

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Brenda Kincer
243 Heritage Drive
Whitesburg, KY 41858

G. Kincer
P.O. Box 1202
Jenkins, KY 41537

Robin and Dwayne Kincer
P.O. Box 183
Jenkins, KY 41537

Sandra Kincer
P.O. Box 202
Jenkins, KY 41537

Larry King
Address Withheld

Amelia Kirby
1356 Jenkins Rd
Whitesburg, KY 41858

R.F. and Edna Kiser
559 Bill Moore Br.
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Melissa Knight
82 Improvement Branch
Jenkins, KY 41537

Jeanette Ladd
P.O. Box 261
Cromona, KY 41810

Margaret Lewis
Address Withheld

Shawn Lind
4091 Highway 805
Jenkins, KY 41537

John Lindon
210 Apple Ridge Lane
Hazard, KY 41701

Dewey Little
P.O. Box 43
Pine Top, KY 41731

Shane Lyle
801 Corporate Dr
Lexington, KY 40503

Bridgette Madden
1108 Racetrack Holw
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Royce Maggard Jr.
Address Withheld

Roger Martin
2743 Highway 7 South
Dena, KY 41859

Ricky Mason
588 Stinking Branch
Thornton, KY 41855

Josh May
P.O. Box 18
Mayking, KY 41837

Jordan Mazurek
3401 Gatewood Ct, Apt 56
Lexington, KY 40517

Jim and Karen McAuley
87 Kona Dr
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Bennie McCall
P.O. Box 646
Neon, KY 41840

Bill McClanahan
Address Withheld

Dustin McDaniel
Abolitionist Law Center
P.O. Box 8654
Pittsburgh, PA 15221

James McDannel
116 Vermillion Ave
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Roger and Geraldine McDonald
170 Virginia Ave
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Eddie Meade
2 Stevens Fork
Deane, KY 41812

Eugene Meade
19 Fields Cliff
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Robert Meade
11010 Highway 160
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Shelia Meade
P.O. Box 316
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Twyla Messer
219 Yellow Mt. Rd
Leburn, KY 41831

Delena Miller
9145 Highway 931 S.
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Mary Miller
Address Withheld

11-8

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Belinda Morris
493 Highway 3404
Partridge, KY 40862

Annette Napier
917 Perry Park Road
Hazard, KY 41701

Durward and Deborah Narramore
71 Elm St
Jenkins, KY 41537

Lisa Narramore
26 Pine St
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Paul Nesbitt
227 North Upper St
Lexington, KY 40507

Freddy Oakes
P.O. Box 1102
Thornton, KY 41855

Stanley Osborne
3374 Highway 317
Jackhorn, KY 41825

Leslie and Paul Parsons
1771 Highway 931 North
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Ike Patterson
166 Long Ave
Whitesburg, KY 41858

James and Rhonda Perry
P.O. Box 197
Lynch, KY 40855

Anne Petermann
Global Justice Ecology Project
Address Withheld

Rodney Pigman
71 Darcas Branch
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Pine Mountain Grill
Address Withheld

Susan Polis
843 Highway 317
Isom, KY 41840

Lona Leigh Pomraning
134 Ohio St
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Emily Posner
Address Withheld

Gary and Rita Pratt
187 Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Prison Books Collective
Address Withheld

Maxine Quillen
77 Sydney Dr
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Stephen Raher
1120 N.W. Couch Street
10th Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128

Tarence Ray
260 Main Street, Apt B
Whitesburg, KY 41858

JoAnn Redmond
P.O. Box 311
Mayking, KY 41837

Cathy Rose
2792 Highway 3406
Jenkins, KY 41537

Elizabeth Sanders
1348 Jenkins Road
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Janet Sandlin
P.O. Box 834
Hazard, KY 41702

Charles Saxton
412 Solomon Road
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Ann Sayer
50 Twin Creek Drive
Eolia, KY 40826

Judah Schept
Address Withheld

Corinne Sereni
Address Withheld

Tony Sergent
Letcher County Public Schools
224 Parks St
Whitesburg, KY 41858

David and Linda Setzer
76 Texas Avenue
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Jeannie Sexton
395 Sunset View Loop
Mayking, KY 41837

Lovell Sexton
Address Withheld

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

11-9

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Michael Sexton
3703 Thornton Rd
Thornton, KY 41855

Sybil Shell
20 Autumn Winds Lane
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Michael Shepherd
24 Brett Dr.
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Caleb Short
200 Alaska Ave, Apt 223
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Susan Short
255 Highway 1087 East
Leburn, KY 41831

Carl Shoupe
P.O. Box 185
Benham, KY 40807

Robert Shubert
72 Goodwater Circle
Jenkins, KY 41537

Eugene Slone
122 Company Br
Ermine, KY 41815

Joshua Smallwood
466 Pine Valley Rd
Hazard, KY 41701

Sharon Smallwood
84 Hummingbird Ln
Jenkins, KY 41537

Ada Smith
Address Withheld

Kyle Smith
Address Withheld

Nathan Snowden
14 Dye Addition
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Juanita Spangler
202 Frogpond Lane
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Dena Sparkman
Address Withheld

Duran/Dena Sparkman
99 Royal Melbourne Ln
Jenkins, KY 41537

Major Sparks
440 Foothills Rd
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Marjorie Sparks
874 Highway 3406
Mayking, KY 41837

Raphael Sperry
Architects/Designers/Planners for
Social Responsibility
Address Withheld

Paul Stambaugh
230 Chopping Branch
McRoberts, KY 41835

Howard Stanfill
P.O. Box 363
Blackey, KY 41804

James Stephens
P.O. Box 299
Jenkins, KY 41537

Stop Mass Incarceration KY
2369 Aristocracy Circle
Lexington, KY 40509

Amanda Stunp
600 Highway 3408
Blackey, KY 41858

Stacey Sturgill
P.O Box 776
Lynch, KY 40855

Calvin Tackett
40 Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Michael Thornsberry
7266 Highway 582
Pine Top, KY 41843

Lisa Tidal
18 Collier Court
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Panagiotti Tsolkas
Tanya Turner
HRDC’s Prison Ecology
P.O. Box 463
Whitesburg, KY 41858
Project
Address Withheld

Freda Turnmyre
11984 Highway 805
Jenkins, KY 41537

Priscilla Tyler
52 Tyler Ln
Whitesburg, KY 41858

11-10

Grace Walters
519 Lakeside Dr.
Jenkins, KY 41537

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Katie and Marlene Walters
350 Ironwood Dr
Hallie, KY 41821

Jim Ward
P.O. Box 630
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Anthony Warlick
2928 Highway 343
McRoberts, KY 41835

Thomas Watko
27 Della Drive
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Bonnell Watts
247 Croses Br.
Letcher, KY 41832

Deborah Watts
P.O. Box 74
Jenkins, KY 41537

Earnest Watts
75 Watts Dr
Cornettsville, KY 41731

Freddie Watts
310 Old Dixon Road
Blackey, KY 41804

Jenna Watts
P.O. Box 34
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Ken Watts
180 Old Dixon Rd
Blackey, KY 41804

Tyler and Linda Watts
310 Old Dixon Road
Blackey, KY 41804

Charles and Tina Whitaker
P.O. Box 217
Cromona, KY 41810

Ivan Whitaker
9024 Highway 588
Roxana, KY 41858

Larry and Betty Whitaker
236 Scarlett Lane
Neon, KY 41840

Marion Whitaker
481 C. Hill Rd.
Cornettsville, KY 41731

Mary Whitaker
5442 Highway 1103
Hallie, KY 41821

Ricky Whitaker
820 Tolby Branch
Hallie, KY 41821

Pamela White
P.O. Box 493
Jenkins, KY 41357

Shellie Williams
P.O. Box 23
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Brady Wilson
P.O. Box 444
Ermine, KY 41815

Women in Transition
P.O. Box 1808
Louisville, KY 40201

Working Narratives
1512 Orange St
Wilmington, NC 28401

Brian Wright
227 Low Gap Branch
Isom, KY 41824

Donald and Mary Wright
2804 Highway 3406
Jenkins, KY 41537

Jennifer Wright
P.O. Box 255
Mayking, KY 41838

Jenny Wright
1013 Lucerne Ave
Lake Worth, FL 33460

Mitchell Wright
P.O. Box 9
Isom, KY 41824

Paul Wright
Human Rights Defense Center
P.O. Box 1151
Lake Worth, FL 33460

Heather Yates
155 Barton Branch
Partridge, KY 40862

Denise Yonts
Letcher County Public Schools
224 Parks St
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Don and Melissa Young
1589 Highway 343
Neon, KY 41840

Fred Young
1117 Highway 343
Neon, KY 41840

Mark Young
P.O. Box 45
McRoberts, KY 41835

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

11-11

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Mark and Deborah Young
279 Wintergreen Drive
McRoberts, KY 41835
In addition to the agencies, individuals, and organization listed above, notification of the availability of
the Revised Final EIS was sent to 34 individuals who requested their name and address be withheld.
Libraries
Harry M. Caudill Memorial Library
220 Main Street
Whitesburg, KY 41858

Jenkins Public Library
9543 Highway 805
Jenkins, KY 41537

Blackey Public Library
295 Main St. Loop
Blackey, KY 41804

Lillian Webb Memorial Library
1049 Highway 317
Neon, KY 41840

11-12

11.0 Distribution List
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

APPENDIX A
AGENCY COORDINATION

Appendix A
March 2016

A-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

A-2

Appendix A
March 2016

STEVEN

l. 8ESHEAR

BoB STEWART

TOURISM, ARTS AND HERITAGE CABINET
KENTUCKY HERITAGE COUNCIL

GOVERNOR

THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
300 WASHINGTON STREET
FRANKFORT,KENTUCKY40601
PHONE(502)564-7005
FAX(502)564-5820

SECRETARY

CRAIG

A.

POTTS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

www.heritage.ky.gov

April 24, 2014

Issac Gaston
United States Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Capacity Planning and Site Selection Branch
320 First St. NW
Washington, DC 20534

Re:

Historic Architectural Resources Survey for Proposed Federal Correctional Facility,
Letcher County, Kentucky

Dear Mr. Gaston:
On March 27, we received the above referenced report for review and comment. Six historic resources
(LR-149 through 153 and LR-188) were evaluated. None ofthe sites are considered eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places, and the consultant recommends no further work. We concur
with the results of the survey.
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Jill Howe of my staff at 502-564-7005,
ext. 121.

Sincerely,

CZ>~I?K..Craig A. Potts
Executive Director and
State Historic Preservation Officer

CP:jh

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

-ventu~
~~UNBRIDLED
SPIRIT'!/.

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office
330 West Broadway, Suite 265
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 695-0468
August 7, 2014

Ms. Deborah Henson
Cardno Tec
18 S. George Street, Suite 400
York, PA 17401
Re:	FWS 2013-B-0627; Federal Bureau of Prisons; proposed federal penitentiary; located in
Letcher County, Kentucky
Dear Ms. Henson:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the above-referenced project. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed this proposed project and offers the following comments
in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
This is not a concurrence letter. Please read carefully, as further consultation with the Service may
be required.
In accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Service has
reviewed the project with regards to the effects the proposed actions may have on wetlands and/or
other jurisdictional waters. We recommend that project plans be developed to avoid impacting
wetland areas and/or streams, and reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at
the time of public notice issuance. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should be contacted to assist
you in determining if wetlands or other jurisdictional waters are present or if a permit is required.
In accordance to section 7 of the ESA, the Service must evaluate the potential for all the direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects of a proposed project on federally listed species. This includes
effects of any "interrelated actions" that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for
their justification and "interdependent actions" that have no independent utility apart from the action
under consideration. Please include information about all of the potential impacts associated with the
proposed project, including those from interrelated or interdependent actions (e.g.; utilities, etc.) and
future actions that are reasonably certain to occur as a result of the proposed project.
In order to assist you in determining if the proposed project has the potential to impact protected
species we have searched our records for occurrences of listed species within the vicinity of the
proposed project. Based upon the information provided to us and according to our databases, we
believe that the following federally listed species have the potential to occur within the project
vicinity:

Group
Mammals

Fishes

Species

Common name

Legal*
Status

Myotis sodalis

Indiana bat

E

Myotis grisescens

gray bat

E

Myotis septentrionalis

northern long-eared bat

P

Etheostoma sagitta spilotum

Kentucky arrow darter

C

* Key to notations: E - Endangered, 7' - Threatened P - Proposed, C - Candidate, CH - Critical Habitat

We must advise you that collection records available to the Service may not be all-inclusive. Our
database is a compilation of collection records made available by various individuals and resource
agencies. This information is seldom based on comprehensive surveys of all potential habitats and
thus does not necessarily provide conclusive evidence that protected species are present or absent at a
specific locality.
Indiana bat
The entire state of Kentucky is within the range of the Indiana bat; (1) caves, rockshelters, and
abandoned underground mines provide suitable wintering habitat for the Indiana bat; and (2) forested
areas provide suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat for the Indiana bat. In order to address
the concerns and be in compliance with the ESA, we have the following recommendations relative to
potential direct and/or indirect effects as a result of impacts to the habitats listed above:
(1) During hibernation, the Indiana bat prefers limestone caves, sandstone rockshelters, and
abandoned underground mines with stable temperatures of 39 to 46 degrees F and humidity
above 74 percent but below saturation. Prior to hibernation, Indiana bats utilize the forest
habitat up to five miles from the hibernacula to feed and roost until temperatures drop to a
point that forces them into hibernation. This "swarming" period is dependent upon weather
conditions and lasts from about September 15 to about November 15. This is a critical time
for Indiana bats, since they are acquiring additional fat reserves and mating prior to
hibernation.
Based on the presence of numerous caves, rock shelters, and underground mines in
Kentucky, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that other caves, rock shelters, and/or
abandoned underground mines may occur within the project area, and, if they occur, they
could provide winter habitat for Indiana bats. Therefore, we recommend that the project
proponent conduct a phase 1 winter hibernacula habitat assessment following the March 15,
2014 "Supplemental Indiana bat survey guidance for Kentucky." This assessment should
identify any caves, rock shelters, and underground mines and assess their potential as suitable
Indiana bat hibernacula. Depending on the results of the habitat assessment, subsequent bat
presence/absence surveys may be necessary to determine if the species is using a feature as a
hibernaculum. These presence/absence surveys must be conducted between September 1 and
October 31 or April 1 and April 21 following the protocol found in the guidance document
cited above.
(2) The Indiana bat utilizes a wide array of forested habitats, including riparian forests,
bottomlands, and uplands for both summer foraging and roosting habitat. Indiana bats
typically roost under exfoliating bark, in cavities of dead and live trees, and in snags (i.e.,
dead trees or dead portions of live trees). Trees in excess of 16 inches diameter at breast

2

height (DBH) are considered optimal for maternity colony roosts, but trees in excess of 9
inches DBH appear to provide suitable maternity roosting habitat. Male Indiana bats have
been observed roosting in trees as small as 5 inches DBH.
We recommend that the project proponent design or modify the proposed project to eliminate
or reduce impacts to suitable Indiana bat habitat, thus avoiding impacts. A habitat
assessment may useful in determining if suitable Indiana bat summer roosting or foraging
habitat is present in the action area of the proposed project. If suitable habitat removal
cannot be avoided, the following are the typical options available to address potential impacts
to the species:
•

The project proponent survey the project site to determine the presence or likely
absence of Indiana bats within the project area in an effort to determine if potential
effects are likely. A qualified biologist who holds the appropriate collection permits
for the Indiana bat must undertake such surveys in accordance with our most current
survey guidance. If any Indiana bats are identified, we would request written
notification of such occurrence(s) and further coordination and consultation.

•

The project proponent can request formal section 7 consultation through the lead
federal action agency associated with the proposed project. To request formal
consultation, the project proponent would need to submit a Biological Assessment
that describes the action and evaluates the effects of the action on the listed species in
the project area. After formal consultation is initiated, the Service has 135 days to
prepare a Biological Opinion that analyzes the effects of the action on the listed
species and recommends strategies to minimize those effects.

•

The project proponent may provide the Service with additional information through
the informal consultation process, prepared by a qualified biologist, that includes sitespecific habitat information and a thorough effects analysis (direct, indirect, and
cumulative) to support a "not likely to adversely affect" determination. "I he Service
will review this and decide if there is enough supporting information to concur with
the determination.

•

The project proponent may choose to assume presence of the species in the project
area and enter into a Conservation Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
Service to account for the incidental take of Indiana bats. By entering into a
Conservation MOA with the Service, Cooperators gain flexibility with regard to the
removal of suitable Indiana bat habitat.	In exchange for this flexibility, the
Cooperator provides recovery-focused conservation benefits to the Indiana bat
through the implementation of minimization and mitigation measures that are
described in the Indiana Bat Mitigation Guidance for the Commonwealth of
Kentucky. For additional information about this option, please notify our office.

The Payne Gap / Lawson site is in potential Indiana bat habitat; all of the options listed above are
appropriate for addressing potential impacts to the species at this site. Because the Roxana site is in
known "Pl/P2 swarming" habitat, we already know that the species is present in the proposed project
area, and, therefore, further surveys are not necessary. Impacts to the species at the Roxana site
should be addressed by using one of the last three bullet points listed above.

3

Gray bat
Gray bats roost, breed, rear young, and hibernate in caves year round. They migrate between
summer and winter caves and will use transient or stopover caves along the way. Gray bats eat a
variety of flying aquatic and terrestrial insects present along streams, rivers, and lakes. Low-flow
streams produce an abundance of insects and are especially valuable to the gray bat as foraging
habitat. For hibernation, the roost site must have an average temperature of 42 to 52 degrees F. Most
of the caves used by gray bats for hibernation have deep vertical passages with large rooms that
function as cold air traps. Summer caves must be warm, between 57 and 77 degrees F, or have small
rooms or domes that can trap the body heat of roosting bats. Summer caves are normally located
close to rivers or lakes where the bats feed. Gray bats have been known to fly as far as 12 miles from
their colony to feed.
Because we have concerns relating to the gray bat on this project and due to the lack of occurrence
information available on this species relative to the proposed project area, we have the following
recommendations relative to gray bats.
•

Based on the presence of numerous caves, rock shelters, and underground mines in
Kentucky, we believe that it is reasonable to assume that other caves, rock shelters, and/or
abandoned underground mines may occur within the project area, and, if they occur, they
could provide winter/summer habitat for gray bats. Therefore, we would recommend that the
project proponent survey the project area for caves, rock shelters, and underground mines.
Additional evaluation and/or surveys may be necessary if suitable gray bat hibernacula and/or
roosting habitat exists in the action area of the proposed project.

•

Sediment Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be utilized and maintained to minimize
siltation of the streams located within and in the vicinity of the project area, as these streams
represent potential foraging habitat for the gray bat.

Northern long eared bat
The northern long-eared bat was proposed for federal listing under the ESA on October 2, 2013. The
Service has extended the deadline for the final determination to April 2, 2015. Both proposed project
sites are located in "known summer" northern-long-eared bat habitat. During the summer, northern
long-eared bats typically roost singly or in colonies in a wide-variety of forested habitats, where they
seek shelter during daylight hours underneath bark or in cavities/crevices of both live trees and snags,
including relatively small trees and snags that are less than 5 inches in diameter at breast height
(DBH). Northern long-eared bats have also been documented roosting in man-made structures (i.e.,
buildings, barns, etc.) during the summer. According to current winter occurrence data, northern
long-eared bats predominately winter in hibernacula that include caves, tunnels, and underground
mine passages.
-

Although species proposed for listing are not afforded protection under the ESA, when a species is
listed, the prohibitions against jeopardizing its continued existence and unauthorized take are
effective immediately, regardless of an action's stage of completion. Therefore, to avoid
significant project delays, we recommend that the project proponent evaluate and address potential
impacts to northern long-eared bat summer habitat and winter habitat that is present in the action area
of the proposed project.

4

Kentucky Arrow Darter
The Kentucky arrow darter is a rather large, brightly colored darter that is restricted to the upper
Kentucky River basin in eastern Kentucky. The species' preferred habitat consists of pools or
transitional areas between riffles and pools (runs and glides) in moderate to high gradient streams
with bedrock, boulder, and cobble substrates. The species' habitat and range have been severely
degraded and limited by water pollution from surface coal mining and gas-exploration activities;
removal of riparian vegetation; stream channelization; increased siltation associated with poor
mining, logging, and agricultural practices; and deforestation of watersheds. A habitat assessment
and/or survey may be necessary to determine if impacts to these species are likely as a result of the
proposed project.
As a federal candidate species, the Service sufficient information on the biological status and threats
of the species to propose it as endangered or threatened under the ESA, but development of a
proposed listing regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. Candidate species
receive no statutory protection under the ESA. The Service encourages cooperative conservation
efforts for these species because they are, by definition, species that may warrant future protection
under the ESA. Addressing the needs of Kentucky arrow darter before the regulatory requirements
associated with a listed threatened or endangered species come into play, would allow future
developers, landowners, and other entities greater management flexibility to stabilize or restore the
species and its habitat for future projects. In addition, as such threats are reduced and populations are
increased or stabilized, priority for listing can be shifted to those species in greatest need of the
ESA's protective measures. Ideally, sufficient threats can be removed to eliminate the need for
listing.
Presence/absence surveys would provide additional information regarding the likelihood that the
proposed project would impact Kentucky arrow darter. Surveys would not be necessary if habitat
assessments, especially specific conductivity measurements, supported that suitable habitat does not
exist in the action area of the proposed project.

Thank you again for your request. Your concern for the protection of endangered and threatened
species is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the information that we have
provided, please contact Jessi Miller at (502) 695-0468 extension 104.

Sincerely,

Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr.
Field Supervisor

5

,..
STEVEN

l.

BESHEAR

GOVERNOR

w

TOURISM, ARTS AND HERITAGE CABINET
KENTUCKY HERITAGE COUNCIL
THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
300 WASHINGTON STREET
FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 40601
PHONE(502)564-7005
FAX(502)564-5820

8os STEWART
SECRETARY

CRAIG

A.

POTTS

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

www.heritage.ky.gov

December 22, 2014
Mr. Issac Gaston, Site Selection Specialist
Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First Street NW
Washington, DC 20534

Re: Addendum Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Federal Bureau of Prisons Proposed United States
Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp, Letcher County Kentucky, by Kimberly Sebestyen and Steven Brann
(Cardno, Inc).
Dear Mr. Gaston:
Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above referenced report for an archaeological survey
conducted in Letcher County, Kentucky for the proposed United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp
project. The survey found no evidence of cultural resources. Therefore, the author concluded that the project
will have no adverse effect on cultural resources that are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register
of Historic Places. I concur with the author's findings. Therefore, in accordance with 36CFR Part 800.4 (d) of
the Advisory Council's revised regulations our finding is that there are No Historic Properties Present within
the undertaking's area of potential impact. Therefore, we have no further comments and responsibility to
consult with the Kentucky State Historic Preservation Officer under the Section 106 review process on this
project is fulfilled.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Yvonne Sherrick of my staff at 564-7005, ext. 113.
Sincerely,

~~
Craig A. Potts
Executive Director and
State Historic Preservation Officer
CP:43104
cc. George Crothers, Johnathan Kerr (CRA)

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

l(tz!l!!~

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons

Wu.1hington. /)C 2053-1

January 16, 2015

Ms. Jessica Miller
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Kentucky Field Office
330 W Broadway, Suite 265
Frankfort, KY 40601
Subject: Phase I Indiana and Gray Bat Survey for the Environmental Impact Statement for new Federal
Bureau of Prisons United States Penitentiary and Federal Prison Camp in Letcher County, Kentucky
Dear Ms. Miller:
Please find attached one copy of the Desktop Analysis and Habitat Survey for the Indiana Bat (Myotis
soda/is), Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens), and Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionafis) at two Sites

for a Proposed Federal Correctional Facility in Letcher County, Kentucky for your review. The report has
been prepared in accordance with your letter dated August 7, 2014.

Please contact me with any

questions at 202-514-6470 or at igaston@bop.gov.

Siy,

~:,,C~::cialist
Capacity
Branch

Planning

and

Construction

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Walker, Lindsay A.
Henson, Deborah
FW: Letcher Co TIS - Revised per KYTC Comments
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4:21:35 PM

Fyi – From KYTC Central Office
 
From: Brown, Robert F (KYTC) [mailto:RobertF.Brown@ky.gov]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:13 PM
To: Walker, Lindsay A.
Subject: RE: Letcher Co TIS - Revised per KYTC Comments

 
Lindsay,
 
I have no further comments on the TIS.
 
Thank you,
 

Robert Brown, P.E.
Division of Traffic Operations
Phone 502.564.3020
Fax 502.564.7759
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

Confidentiality Statement - This communication contains information which is confidential. It is for the exclusive use of the intended
recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of distribution, copying, forwarding or use of this
communication or the information therein is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error,
please return it to the sender.

 
From: Walker, Lindsay A. [mailto:WalkerLi@pbworld.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:06 PM
To: Couch, Greg (KYTC-D12); Collins, Mandy (KYTC-D12); Brown, Robert F (KYTC)
Cc: Holbrook, Mary W (KYTC-D12)
Subject: Letcher Co TIS - Revised per KYTC Comments

 
Good afternoon,
 
Thanks again for taking the time to review and provide comments on the Letcher County TIS for the
new proposed prison.  I have incorporated them into the document (as shown by the highlighted
sections.  Cardno (our client) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons has reviewed and accepted these
changes.  Please let me know if you have any further comment on them; otherwise we will finalize
and include as part of the overall FEIS.
 
Thanks so much!
 
Lindsay
 
Lindsay Walker, PE, PTOE, AICP
Traffic / Transportation Engineer
Parsons Brinckerhoff
1792 Alysheba Way, Suite 230

Lexington, KY 40509
859-245-3869 (office)
859-252-6491 (cell)
 
walkerli@pbworld.com<mailto:mcaclister@pbworld.com
 
www.pbworld.com<http://www.pbworld.com/

 
 
 

______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential
information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure,
viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this
message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.
______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential
information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure,
viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this
message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Walker, Lindsay A.
Henson, Deborah
FW: Letcher Co TIS - Revised per KYTC Comments
Tuesday, May 05, 2015 4:20:40 PM

Fyi – from District 12
 
From: Collins, Mandy (KYTC-D12) [mailto:Mandy.Collins@ky.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2015 8:01 AM
To: Walker, Lindsay A.; Couch, Greg (KYTC-D12); Brown, Robert F (KYTC)
Cc: Holbrook, Mary W (KYTC-D12)
Subject: RE: Letcher Co TIS - Revised per KYTC Comments

 
I have no further comments.
 
Sorry for the delay.
 

Mandy Collins-Justice
 

From: Walker, Lindsay A. [mailto:WalkerLi@pbworld.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 1:06 PM
To: Couch, Greg (KYTC-D12); Collins, Mandy (KYTC-D12); Brown, Robert F (KYTC)
Cc: Holbrook, Mary W (KYTC-D12)
Subject: Letcher Co TIS - Revised per KYTC Comments

 
Good afternoon,
 
Thanks again for taking the time to review and provide comments on the Letcher County TIS for the
new proposed prison.  I have incorporated them into the document (as shown by the highlighted
sections.  Cardno (our client) and the Federal Bureau of Prisons has reviewed and accepted these
changes.  Please let me know if you have any further comment on them; otherwise we will finalize
and include as part of the overall FEIS.
 
Thanks so much!
 
Lindsay
 
Lindsay Walker, PE, PTOE, AICP
Traffic / Transportation Engineer
Parsons Brinckerhoff
1792 Alysheba Way, Suite 230
Lexington, KY 40509
859-245-3869 (office)
859-252-6491 (cell)
 
walkerli@pbworld.com<mailto:mcaclister@pbworld.com
 
www.pbworld.com<http://www.pbworld.com/

 

 
 

______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential
information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure,
viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this
message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.
______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential
information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure,
viewing, copying, alteration, dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, or you are not an authorized
recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message, delete this
message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Branham, Justin L LRL
Henson, Deborah
RE: BOP Letcher County EIS (UNCLASSIFIED)
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:34:12 AM

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Deb,
Thank you for sending the summary. As mentioned previously, I hope to get out and take a look at those streams
when I get a break in the schedule. However, I was reviewing some previously authorized projects in the Roxana
area and there was a recent project issued on a gas line project near the old Consol haulroad that we traveled. I
believe that the consultant could very well have the scores that you need for the project. Considering my limited
time to be out in the field, I'm unsure when I'll be able to check the streams. If you would want to contact the
consultant and ask them about their data, I'd be more than glad to pass their contact information along to you. The
data is valid because I have already concurred with it. If this is an option for you, just let me know and I'll give you
the contact information. If not, then I'll try and schedule a visit over that way when I get a chance.
Justin Branham
Team Leader / Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Louisville District
Eastern Kentucky Regulatory Office
845 Sassafras Creek Road
Sassafras, KY 41759
Phone: 606-642-3208
Email: Justin.L.Branham@usace.army.mil
Comments on our Regulatory Services are invited:
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey

-----Original Message----From: Henson, Deborah [mailto:Deborah.Henson@cardno-gs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:27 AM
To: Branham, Justin L LRL
Cc: Scheuerman, Clint; igaston@bop.gov
Subject: [EXTERNAL] BOP Letcher County EIS
Hi Justin,

Thanks again for taking the time to meet with us on May 19th.  We appreciate your input and help with this project. 
The following is a summary of our meeting:

1)      The Bureau is requesting a preliminary JD of the Roxana site based on the findings of the site visit conducted
on May 18, 2015, the 2011 Roxana Wetland Report, and the 2014 Wetland Report.
2)      The Bureau will conduct mitigation for wetlands at a 2:1 ratio. Currently, there are approximately 2 acres of
wetland impacts anticipated which would result in roughly 4 acres of mitigation, which is anticipated to be covered
by the in-lieu fee program. Currently, the in-lieu fee program is $45,000 per acre which would result in payment, at
existing costs, of approximately $190,000.  The Bureau understands that this cost my increase before the project is
ready to obtain permits and begin construction activities.

3)      Stream mitigation will be covered at a cost per linear foot based on Ecological Integrity Unit Scores (which
range from 0.1 to 1.0) for the impacted streams.  The Ecological Integrity Unit Score for each stream impacted is
multiplied by the linear feet of impact to that stream and then multiplied by $750.00. 
4)      Based on our discussion, the USACOE will take some data from the streams to assist the Bureau in obtaining
the Ecological Integrity Unit Scores for the impacted streams.  USACOE asks that a map with the streams labeled
be forwarded to aide in this task (map is attached).
5)      The project may qualify for a Nationwide Permit 39, if the District Engineer waives the linear feet/acreage
threshold.
6)    The Bureau will continue coordination with USACOE throughout the course of the project to ensure all permit
requirements and mitigation measures are implemented.

If you have any comments or edits to this summary, please let me know and I will revise.

Deborah Henson
PROJECT MANAGER
GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION
CARDNO

Office (+1) 717-547-6278  Mobile (+1) 717-433-7550  Fax (+1) 717-547-6357 
Address 145 Limekiln Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, PA 17070
Email deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com <mailto:deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com>   Web www.cardno.com
<http://www.cardno.com> 

Celebrating 70 Years of Shaping the Future - 1945 - 2015 <http://www.cardno.com/en-us/AboutUs/Pages/70-yearsof-Shaping-the-Future.aspx>

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the
intended recipient(s). All electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version
which shall be the only document which Cardno warrants accuracy. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this email in error, please email the sender by replying to this message and immediately delete and
destroy any copies of this email and any attachments. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and
may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno.

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Branham, Justin L LRL
Deborah Henson
RE: Letcher County EIS (UNCLASSIFIED)
Friday, June 26, 2015 9:30:26 AM

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
No. That would be it. I will be working up the JD request and getting you a JD letter back to you. It won't really
affect the EIS at all but it will verify your delineation.
Justin Branham
Team Leader / Regulatory Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Louisville District
Eastern Kentucky Regulatory Office
845 Sassafras Creek Road
Sassafras, KY 41759
Phone: 606-642-3208
Email: Justin.L.Branham@usace.army.mil
Comments on our Regulatory Services are invited:
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey
-----Original Message----From: Deborah Henson [mailto:Deborah.Henson@cardno-gs.com]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 9:26 AM
To: Branham, Justin L LRL
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letcher County EIS
Good morning Justin,

I just received the stream data and mitigation calculations from James.  We will be submitting those ASAP.  I have
included the mitigation in the Final EIS.  The Bureau will be reviewing the Draft FEIS over the next two weeks, so
if you have any comments on the mitigation please let me know and we will include in the Final EIS before it goes
out for public review.  At this point is there anything else you need prior to the release of the Final EIS? 

Thanks,
Deb

Deborah Henson
PROJECT MANAGER
GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION
CARDNO

Office (+1) 717-547-6278  Mobile (+1) 717-433-7550  Fax (+1) 717-547-6357 
Address 145 Limekiln Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, PA 17070
Email deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com <mailto:deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com>   Web www.cardno.com

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Deborah Henson
"Miller, Jessica"
RE: FW: Letcher County Indiana and Northern Long-Eared Bat Mitigation
Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:54:00 PM

Thanks Jessi.  I will make sure that is clear in the mitigation section of the FEIS.
 
 

Deborah Henson
PROJECT MANAGER
GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION
CARDNO

 
Office (+1) 717-547-6278  Mobile (+1) 717-433-7550  Fax (+1) 717-547-6357 
Address 145 Limekiln Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, PA 17070
Email deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com  Web www.cardno.com

 
This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). All
electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document which Cardno
warrants accuracy. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please email the sender by replying to this message and
immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and
may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno.

 
From: Miller, Jessica [mailto:jessica_miller@fws.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 1:49 PM
To: Deborah Henson
Subject: Re: FW: Letcher County Indiana and Northern Long-Eared Bat Mitigation

That looks good, Deb. The only other thing that comes to mind is that tree removal during
June and July is not covered under the CMOA.
Jessi
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Deborah Henson <Deborah.Henson@cardno-gs.com>
wrote:
Hi Jessi,
I just wanted to follow up on the below email and make sure there is nothing else you need
prior to us moving forward with publication of the Final EIS?
Thanks,
Deb
Deborah Henson
PROJECT MANAGER
GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION
CARDNO
Office (+1) 717-547-6278  Mobile (+1) 717-433-7550  Fax (+1) 717-547-6357 
Address 145 Limekiln Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, PA 17070
Email deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com  Web www.cardno.com

This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). All
electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document which Cardno
warrants accuracy. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please email the sender by replying to this message and
immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and
may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno.

From: Henson, Deborah
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 9:32 AM
To: Jessica Miller (jessica_miller@fws.gov)
Cc: igaston@bop.gov
Subject: Letcher County Indiana and Northern Long-Eared Bat Mitigation

Good morning Jessi,
Just a follow up to our May 20, 2015 meeting to discuss mitigation for the Indiana and
northern long-eared bat at the Roxana site. Below is the summary of that meeting and
subsequent discussions we have had regarding the Roxana site and mitigation.
1) During the May 20 meeting we discussed that approximately 105 acres of summer habitat
for the Indian bat and northern long-eared bat would be impacted at the Roxana site. To be
covered under the MOA the impacts must be under 100 acres. Subsequently, the impact areas
were re-evaluated and impacts will be approximately 92.5 acres. Based on coordination with
you on June 11, 2015 you reviewed the map detailing the impact areas and agree that based
on this impact assessment, the Roxana site can be covered through the Conservation
Memorandum Agreement (CMOA) following the guidance provided in the USFWS's April
2015 Conservation Strategy for Forest Dwelling Bats in the Commonwealth of Kentucky
(Conservation Strategy).
2)
The CMOA will be put in place between the USFWS and the Bureau when construction
funds become available. Mitigation will be in place prior to any disturbance to the site would
occur.
3)
Mitigation identified in the CMOA would include payment to the Kentucky Natural
Lands Trust which would be placed in the Imperiled Bat Conservation Fund. The mitigation
payment would be used to acquire, protect, and manage bat habitat in Kentucky. Based on
2015 rates mitigation would range from approximately $930,00.00 to $1.3 million.
Mitigation payment will depend on the time of year the habitat is impacted and rates may
change prior to construction funding becoming available.
4)
Once construction funding is available, the Bureau will meet with USFWS to ensure the
CMOA is in place and mitigation requirements are fulfilled prior to any disturbance at the site
(excavation, grading, timber removal, etc.).
5)
Sediment Best Management Practices would be implemented to minimize sediment
being carried to streams on site which may be potential foraging habitat for the gray bat.
6) At this time, based on the Preferred Alternative (Roxana), no formal Section 7 consultation
is required for the Letcher County EIS project. Should anything change during the
development of the final design site plans, the Bureau will notify USFWS to discuss any
changes and how they may effect additional studies and mitigation.
Please let me know if you concur with this summary or have any additions or questions.
Thanks,
Deb
Deborah Henson
PROJECT MANAGER
GOVERNMENT SERVICES DIVISION

CARDNO

Office (+1) 717-547-6278  Mobile (+1) 717-433-7550  Fax (+1) 717-547-6357 
Address 145 Limekiln Road, Suite 100, New Cumberland, PA 17070
Email deborah.henson@cardno-gs.com  Web www.cardno.com

 
Celebrating 70 Years of Shaping the Future – 1945 - 2015

 
This email and its attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged information for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). All
electronically supplied data must be checked against an applicable hardcopy version which shall be the only document which Cardno
warrants accuracy. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, distribution or copying of the information contained in this email and its
attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please email the sender by replying to this message and
immediately delete and destroy any copies of this email and any attachments. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and
may not reflect the views or opinions of Cardno.

-Jessica Blackwood Miller
Fish & Wildlife Biologist
Kentucky Field Office
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
330 W. Broadway, Suite 265
Frankfort, KY  40601
Ph: (502) 695-0468 ext. 104
Fax: (502) 695-1024

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
~ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant: Deborah Henson (Cardno Tee) on 5/12/l!::i.
D Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant.
D Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
D Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
~ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Completed by PM for formatting.
D Corps navigable waters' study:.
D U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
0 USGS NHD data.
0 USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
~ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:1: 24, ooo
Roxana
D USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
D National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
D State/Local wetland inventory map(s).
D FEMA/FIRM maps:
D 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of
1929)
~ Photographs:~ Aerial (Name & Date):Google Satellite
10-8-2013 Imagery
or~ Other (Name & Date):Field photos submitted 5/12/15
D Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:.
D Other information (please specify):.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not
necessarily been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for
later jurisdictional determinations.

,/

//

(1..£ /,;nJ_ z/u,/zot"

l~fM-

o~gnature and date of

Z -tA9- z,;/{,

/'Signatl.(e and date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)

Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUIRED)

3

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
9/4/13
Date:
10:30
Time:
Phone Call
Meeting Type and Location:
NA
Recorded by:
Luke DuPont, Cardno TEC; Mr. Scott Collins, Paramedic
Participant Names and
and Captain at the Fleming Neon Fire Department
organizations:
606-855-7303
Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Luke DuPont called the Fleming Neon fire department to ask to ask questions regarding their
personnel, jurisdiction, and equipment. He spoke with Mr. Scott Collins, a Captain at the fire
department.
Mr. Collins indicated the following:
There are a total of between 36 firefighters and EMTs at the Fleming Neon Volunteer Fire
Station. Sixteen of which are paid full time employees and twenty are volunteers. The station
has seven paramedics and eight EMTs.
They only have a single station in Fleming Neon and a substation in Whitesburg.
Fleming Neon has two fire engines, 10 ambulances, one tanker truck, one rescue truck, one dive
trailer for underwater rescue, one ATV for search and rescue. The run four ambulances during
the day and two at night. The firefighters run three crews during the day and one at night
The station has with all of the towns in Letcher County. He indicated the Payne Gap site has
hydrants or hydrants in close proximity.
Spoke with Charles Polly regarding additional questions. Mr. Polly, a firefighter and EMT at
Fleming Neon indicated they would be open to discussing an MOU and in the event they were
to assist with a fire it would not impact operations. He indicated they are close enough to cover
Payne Gap; however, Roxana is a 25 minute drive and they would likely be called in under the
overarching mutual aid agreement which covers all of Letcher County. Under the mutual aid
agreement all fire departments help out when requested.
Action Items or Resolutions:
None

Page 1 of 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
9/4/13
Date:
11:32
Time:
Phone Call
Meeting Type and Location:
NA
Recorded by:
Luke DuPont, Cardno TEC; Mr. Mike Dingus, Chief of
Participant Names and
Police at the Fleming Neon Police Department
organizations:
606-855-7900
Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Luke DuPont called the Fleming Neon Police Department to ask questions regarding their
personnel, jurisdiction, and equipment. He spoke with Mr. Mike Dingus, the Chief of Police for
the Fleming Neon Police Department.
Mr. Dingus indicated the following:
Fleming Neon has three fulltime employees comprised of one police chief and two police
officers. In addition they have one volunteer. They have a ratio of citizen to police of 262:1.
They would be able to assist the Payne Gap site if required. They are approximately 6 miles
from Payne Gap.
They provide service 24 hours a day seven days a week, although may have to be dispatched
from home.
They have a single station in Fleming Neon, three squad cars (one of which is an SUV).
They have county wide jurisdiction
Action Items or Resolutions:
None

Page 1 of 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
Date:
Time:
Meeting Type and Location:
Recorded by:
Participant Names and
organizations:

9/4/13
10:15
Phone Call
NA
Luke DuPont, Cardno TEC; Todd Depriest Public Safety
Director for the City of Jenkins
City Hall (606) 832 4411 Mr. Depriest Cell (606)-6346958

Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Luke DuPont called the Jenkins City Hall to inquire about personnel, equipment, and
jurisdiction of the Jenkins’ Police Department and Fire and Rescue and was given Mr. Todd
Depriest’s cell phone number. Mr. Depriest is the Public Safety Director for the Town of
Jenkins.
Mr Depriest indicated the following:
Jenkins’ Fire Department

There is an average of between 25-28 firefighters at the Jenkins Volunteer Fire Station. In
addition, the station has three administrative personnel. All of the firefighters are volunteers and
five of them are EMTs.
They have 2 stations in Jenkins.
The station has 2 fire engines, an 85-foot tower truck, a 65-foot ladder truck, a 2,500 gallon
tanker truck, one heavy rescue truck, and an expedition for personnel transport.
The station has mutual aid agreements with all other stations in Letcher County and will cover
down at another town’s station or assist in firefighting activities. He also indicated that Payne
Gap would fall within their jurisdiction.
Jenkins’ Police
Mr. Depriest also was also knowledgeable about the Jenkins’ police department. He indicated
the following:
Jenkins has six full time personnel working for the police in Jenkins. Four of them are the actual
police, one is the police chief, and the Public Safety Director for the town, Mr. Depriest. He
further indicted they are short staffed one person. The ratio of citizens to police officers is
approximately 400:1.
There is one police station present in Jenkins.

Page 1 of 2

The station has 8 squad cars.
They have 24 hour coverage with the police officers they have on staff.
The Jenkins police have county wide jurisdiction in Letcher County, but are seldom asked by
the Sheriff Department of the Kentucky State Police to respond to incidents outside of Jenkins.
Mr. DePriest believes the Jenkins Police and Fire Departments would be interested in
discussing an MOU with the BOP; however, he would have to defer to the Mayor of Jenkins.
Additionally, Mr. Depriest does not believe assisting BOP would result in impacts to current
operations.
Action Items or Resolutions:
None

Page 2 of 2

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
9/4/13
Date:
12:49
Time:
Phone Call
Meeting Type and Location:
NA
Recorded by:
Luke DuPont, Cardno TEC; Claude Little, Investigative
Participant Names and
Lieutenant, Kentucky State Police-Hazard Post
organizations:
606-435-6069
Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Luke DuPont called Mr. Claude Little, an Investigative Lieutenant for the Kentucky State
Police, to inquire about personnel, equipment, and jurisdiction for the Kentucky State Police in
the vicinity of the BOP proposed action.
Mr. Little indicated the following:
The Hazard Post covers the southeastern portion of Kentucky and includes five counties to
include Letcher County.
He indicated that unless called upon by the State Police or the Sheriff’s Office, the local
community law enforcement would not assist the state police outside of their respective
communities.
Due to budget constraints the State Police laid off five officers at the Hazard Post and are
subsequently short staffed five officers. They currently have 39 state troopers, 18 dispatchers,
three clerks, one custodian, one criminal analyst, and one arson specialist.
The SWAT team is not based out of Hazard County.
The state police have 39 squad cars, with between 8-10 spares in the event a squad car goes
down.
They typically do not have anyone on the road between 4 AM to 6 AM.
When asked about interest in discussing a possible MOU Mr. Little indicated the State Police
would be interested. Additionally, Mr. Little did not believe assisting BOP would impact their
operations.
Action Items or Resolutions:
NA

Page 1 of 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
9/4/13
Date:
10:03
Time:
Phone Call
Meeting Type and Location:
NA
Recorded by:
Luke DuPont, Cardno TEC; Benny Bentley, volunteer
Participant Names and
firefighter, Whitesburg Fire and Rescue
organizations:
606-633-2126
Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Luke DuPont called Mr. Benny Bentley at the Whitesburg Fire and Rescue Service to ask
questions about their personnel, equipment, and jurisdiction.
Mr. Bentley indicated the following:
The fire department has 30 firefighters, 25 volunteer and five paid. In addition they have three
administrative personnel. Five of the firefighters are also EMTs.
The station has five engines, a boom truck with a snorkel.
The station has mutual aid agreements with the rest of the county and would be able to help out
on anything in the county if dispatched.
Gary Mullins, the Fire Chief, answered additional questions regarding interest in an MOU with
the BOP and potential impacts to operation. Mr. Mullins indicated Whitesburg Fire and Rescue
would be interested in discussing an MOU and indicated their support of BOP would not impact
their operations.
Action Items or Resolutions:
NA

Page 1 of 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
9/4/13
Date:
11:05
Time:
Phone Call
Meeting Type and Location:
NA
Recorded by:
Luke DuPont, Cardno TEC; Garnet Sexton, City Clerk and
Participant Names and
Treasurer for Whitesburg
organizations:
606-633-3700
Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Luke DuPont called the Ms. Garnet Sexton, the City Clerk and Treasurer for the City of
Whitesburg to inquire about personnel, equipment, and jurisdiction for the Whitesburg Police
Department.
Ms. Sexton indicates the following:
There are nine fulltime employees comprised of six police officers, one chief of police, one
second in command, and one secretary. They have a citizen to officer ration of 270:1. They are
short staffed one police officer.
The department has eight squad cars.
The department has one police station in Whitesburg.
They provide 24 hour coverage seven days a week.
The department’s jurisdiction is limited to the county but could assist at both sites if asked to.
Ms. Sexton further indicated that she believe the Whitesburg Police Department would be open
to an MOU but the Mayor and Chief of Police of Whitesburg would have the final word.
Furthermore, she indicated operations may be impacted in the event they needed to assist. She is
concerned there may not be enough proper equipment.
Action Items or Resolutions:
NA

Page 1 of 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
9/4/13
Date:
11:42
Time:
Phone Call
Meeting Type and Location:
NA
Recorded by:
Luke DuPont, Cardno TEC; Eugene Slone, Victims
Participant Names and
Advocate for Letcher County Sheriff
organizations:
(606) 633-2293
Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Luke DuPont called the Letcher County Sheriff to inquire about the department. He spoke with
Mr. Eugene Slone, Victims Advocate for Letcher County Sheriff.
Mr. Slone indicates the following:
There are 13 fulltime employees comprised of 10 deputies, and 3 dispatchers. They have 10
squad cars.
They have a headquarters in Whitesburg.
They provide 24 hour coverage seven days a week.
They can provide assistance to both the Payne Gap and Roxana sites.
Their jurisdiction is limited to the county.
Action Items or Resolutions:
NA

Page 1 of 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
9/7/13
Date:
2:16
Time:
Phone Call
Meeting Type and Location:
NA
Recorded by:
Luke DuPont, Cardno TEC; John Amburgey, EMS
Participant Names and
Lieutenant, Letcher County Fire and Rescue.
organizations:
606-633-8058
Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Luke DuPont called Mr. John Amburgey, an EMS Lieutenant for Letcher County Fire and
Rescue, to inquire about personnel, equipment, and jurisdiction of the Letcher County Fire and
Rescue Service.
Mr. Amburgey indicated the following:
They have 32 firefighters, comprised of 20 paid firefighters and 12 volunteer firefighters. Their
jurisdiction is comprised of the southern side of Letcher County. Fifteen of their personnel are
EMTs.
They have three stations; Jeremiah, Blackey, and Hallie,
The have five ambulances, two tanker trucks, and three engines.
Roxana is within their jurisdiction.
Gary Rodgers, Director of Fire and Ambulance for the Letcher County Fire and Rescue,
answered additional questions regarding potential discussion with BOP for an MOU and
potential impacts on operations. Mr. Rodgers indicated they would be interested in discussing
an MOU and their operations would not be impacted if they needed to assist BOP.
Action Items or Resolutions:
NA

Page 1 of 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
3/6/14
Date:
10:15
Time:
Phone Call
Meeting Type and Location:
NA
Recorded by:
Luke DuPont, Cardno TEC; Bruce Crouch Laurel Ridge
Participant Names and
Landfill Manager
organizations:
Mr. Crouch Office: 606-864-7996
Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Luke DuPont called the Laurel Ridge Landfill, which has a transfer station located in Letcher
County and spoke with the Laurel Ridge Manager (Bruce Crouch)
Mr. Crouch indicated the Laurel Ridge landfill, which the Letcher County transfer station
delivers to, is permitted for an additional 34 years. He further indicated he expects the landfill to
take at least that long to reach capacity.
He also indicated there is potential for expansion of the existing landfill and they may be able to
get an additional 20 years of use from an expansion.
Currently the landfill receives approximately 40-50 tons of refuse per day.

Action Items or Resolutions:
None

Page 1 of 1

ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING/TELEPHONE LOG
Date:
Time:
Meeting Type and Location:
Recorded by:

3/12/15
7:00 p.m.
Public Meeting
NA
Deborah Henson, Cardno Project Manager and Robert
Meade, Fire Chief, Kings Creek Volunteer Fire
Department
N/A

Participant Names and
organizations:
Contact Information:
Discussion Points:
Mr. Meade discussed with Ms. Henson the ability and willingness of the Kings Creek
Volunteer Fire Department to work with the Bureau to develop and MOU to assist the proposed
facility if it were constructed at the Roxana site. Mr. Meade indicated the fire department is 1.5
miles from the site. Mr. Meade stated that the fire department has 23 volunteers, one pumper
truck and two large tanker trucks. In addition to the 23 volunteers the department has
relationships with other local volunteer fire departments and has an agreement among these
departments to assist one another. A local paging system allows the numerous volunteer fire
departments to request assistance from one another. Mr. Meade indicated that participating in
an MOU and providing assistance to the facility in the event of an emergency would not impact
the Kings Creek Volunteer Fire Department.
Action Items or Resolutions:
NA

Page 1 of 1

(This page intentionally left blank)

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

APPENDIX B
EXCAVATION AND GRADING CALCULATIONS

Appendix B
March 2016

B-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

B-2

Appendix B
March 2016

Cardno MM&A
5480 Swanton Drive
Lexington, KY 40509
USA
Phone +1 859 263 2855
Fax
+1 859 263 2839
www.cardno.com

October 24, 2014
Mr. Deborah Henson, Project Manager
Cardno Government Services Division
145 Limekiln Road, Suite 100
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania 17070
Subject:

Revised Earthwork Quantities and Construction Costs; Proposed Federal
Correction Facility • Payne Gap and Roxana Sites
Cardno MM&A Project No. CARD003

Dear Ms. Henson:
Per your request, Cardno MM&A (Cardno) is providing revised earthwork quantities and
construction costs for the “Proposed Federal Correction Facility (FCF)” in Letcher County,
Kentucky. The original document was prepared for the Payne Gap and Roxana sites and
published in a report by Marshall Miller & Associates, Inc. (now Cardno MM&A) titled
“Geotechnical Feasibility Report dated June 2012.”
Earthwork quantities and construction costs were presented in the 2012 report for both of these
sites. The United States Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) provided a conceptual plan for the
supporting facilities and access roads for the FCF at both the Payne Gap and Roxana sites.
The proposed “cut shading” on the BOP drawing for the Payne Gap site differed from the
proposed cut shading in the Cardno 2012 report. There were no adjustments made in the
earthwork quantities provided in this letter report related to this difference. The fill slopes for the
supporting facilities at Payne Gap and Roxana were designed at 2:1. “Cut” slopes were
designed for the two sites at 1:1. Additional geotechnical studies may indicate the cut slopes can
be constructed at ½:1 or steeper. Select fill slopes for the access roads at Payne Gap were
steeper than 2:1 to accommodate the existing topography. Slopes steeper than 2:1 may require
stabilization which was not estimated for this revision.
Cardno determined the best fit for the access roads and supporting facilities relative to the
topography present at the two sites.

Australia • Belgium • Canada • Colombia • Ecuador • Germany • Indonesia • Italy •
Kenya • New Zealand • Papua New Guinea • Peru • Tanzania • United Arab Emirates •
United Kingdom • United States • Operations in 85 countries

www.cardnomma.com

Cardno Government Services Division
October 24, 2014
Page 2

1

The unit costs for the construction quantities were based on “RSMeans Cost Data” and updated to reflect 2014
costs.
The earthwork quantities were determined for the supporting facilities and added to the quantities previously
determined for the Payne Gap FCF. A 25 % swell factor was used for all fill at the site. A site plan depicting the
facilities along with the earthwork cut and fills is attached to this letter report as Map No. PG-4 (Revised). The
additional parking area and additional spoil fill area shown on the site plan for the Payne Gap site were added to
the main building area.
Payne Gap Earthwork Quantities
Unit Cost
Item

Unit Cost

Units

Units

$/Cubic Meters

$/Cubic Yards

Soil Excavation

$13.08

$10.00

2,136,671

2,794,660

$27,947,657

Rock Excavation

$27.47

$21.00

6,206,251

8,117,470

$170,485,715

Structural Fill

$3.92

$3.00

1,312,049

1,716,095

$5,143,232

Spoil Fill

$1.31

$1.00

9,256,402

12,106,917

$12,125,887

$/Hectare

$/Acres

Cubic Meters

Cost

Hectare

Cubic Yards

Acres

$ Dollars

$ Dollars

Clear Mined Area

$740

$300

2.7

7

$1,998

Clear Forest Area

$19,030

$7,700

85.3

211

$1,623,259

Total

$217,327,748

The earthwork quantities were determined for the supporting facilities and added to the quantities previously
determined for the Roxana FCF. Due to space limitations at the site and for cut/fill balancing purposes, all material
cut will have to be placed as a structural fill. The swell factor for the rock excavation was 25% and the mine spoil
was reduced by 10% for the structural fill. The rock elevations at the prison camp were inferred from borings to the
south. The actual rock elevations should be confirmed. Constructing the prison camp at different levels could
reduce the amount of rock excavation. A site plan depicting the facilities along with the earthwork cut and fills is
attached to this letter report as Map No. RX-4 (Revised). Two locations shown as cut in the main building area will
require further investigation.

1

Fortier, Robert, PE, Senior Editor, RSMeans Heavy Construction Cost Data, 28th Annual Edition, A Division of Reed Construction Data, LLC,
Construction Publishers & Consultants, 2014.

www.cardnomma.com

Cardno Government Services Division
October 24, 2014
Page 3

Roxana Earthwork Quantities

Item

Unit Cost

Unit Cost

Units

Units

Cost

$/Cubic Meters

$/Cubic Yards

Cubic Meters

Cubic Yards

$ Dollars

Spoil Excavation

$13.08

$10.00

Rock Excavation

$27.47

$21.00

$3.92

$3.00

Structural Fill

$/Hectare

$/Acres

7,037,223

9,204,340

$92,046,877

728,809

953,246

$20,020,383

7,188,790

9,402,582

$28,180,057

Hectare

Acres

$ Dollars

Clear Mined Area

$740

$300

32.7

81

$24,198

Clear Forest Area

$19,030

$7,700

44.4

110

$844,932

Total

$141,116,447

The revised earthwork quantities and construction costs are based on the provided conceptual plan and the
analysis of same, as well as published data and information collected during the 2012 Geotechnical Feasibility
Study. Additional geotechnical studies should be conducted to confirm that the earthwork volumes estimated are
adequate to meet the quantified material required for structural fills in the final design.
The earthwork quantities were itemized by facility and are presented on the Tables PG-1A and RX-1A attached to
this letter report.
We reserve the right to amend our computations, if any additional information becomes available. This revision is
furnished as privileged and confidential to the addressee. Release to any other company, concern, or individual is
solely the responsibility of the addressee. We appreciate the opportunity to have assisted you with this project.
Sincerely,

W. Dale Nicholson, P.E., P.L.S.
Senior Forensic Engineer
for Cardno MM&A
Direct Line 859-977-8865
Email: Dale.Nicholson@cardno.com
WDN/cfn
Attachments

Map PG-4 (Revised) – “Site Grading – Payne Gap Study Area”
Map RX-4 (Revised) – “Site Grading – Roxana Study Area”
Tables PG-1A and RX-1A

c:

File/CARD003

File:

Revised Earthwork.docx

www.cardnomma.com

Cardno Government Services Division
Payne Gap/Lawson Site
Table PG-1A

Volumes by Facility
Item (Cubic Meters)
Spoil Excavation
Rock Excavation
Structural Fill
Spoil Fill

Base Elevation

Main Building
1,266,966
5,005,811
883,064
8,096,932

Roadway
95,830
19,850
14,920
40,050

Training Center
356,105
587,430
249,150
414,805

Utility Plant
140,405
185,610
30,890
704,615

Prison Camp
277,365
407,550
134,025
0

495

Varies

480

480

550

CARD003 Roxana-PayneGap - Attachment (2) 10-24-14, PG-1A, 10/24/2014

Total
2,136,671
6,206,251
1,312,049
9,256,402

1 of 1

Cardno Government Services Division
Roxana/Meade Farm Site
Table RX-1A

Volumes by Facility
Item (Cubic Meters)
Spoil Excavation
Rock Excavation
Structural Fill

Base Elevation

Main Building
4,881,322
0
3,322,628

Roadway

445

CARD003 Roxana-PayneGap - Attachment (2) 10-24-14, RX-1A, 10/24/2014

0
169,438
3,742

Training Center
0
0
3,862,420

Utility Plant
1,507,283
0
0

Prison Camp
648,618
559,371
0

Varies

445

451

425

Total
7,037,223
728,809
7,188,790

1 of 1

(This page intentionally left blank)

Site Grading - Payne Gap Study Area

FUTURE STAFF
TRAINING CENTER
WITH PARKING
PROPOSED
FIRING RANGE

Notes

PROPOSED
UNITED STATES
PENITENTIARY
ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA

91 METER BUFFER ZONE

TRAINING CENTER AREA

MAIN BUILDING AREA

UTILITY PLANT AREA

PRISON CAMP AREA

PROPOSED GARAGE /
LANDSCAPE BUILDING
PROPOSED WAREHOUSE
PROPOSED UTILITY PLANT
WITH RADIO TOWER
PROPOSED WASTE
WATER SCREENING BUILDING
PROPOSED FEDERAL PRISON CAMP

Roxana Study Area

RT 588

PROPOSED FEDERAL
PRISON CAMP
Ro
ut

e

20
36

ell
Jew

te
Sta
n
i
Ma

Notes

RT 588

PRISON CAMP AREA

RT

0
16

RT

PROPOSED
UNITED STATES
PENITENTIARY

B ig

B ra

nc h

Tol
son

Cr

0
16
R

RX-01

L ill y

nch
Bra
t
t
e
n
Cor

T

16
0

RX-07

PROPOSED PARKING

RX-06

RX-05

MAIN BUILDING AREA

RX-11

Big Branch Tolson Cr

91 METER BUFFER ZONE
RX-04
RX-08

PROPOSED WASTE
WATER SCREENING
BUILDING

UTILITY PLANT AREA
RX-03
RX-10

PROPOSED GARAGE /
LANDSCAPE BUILDING

RX-09

PROPOSED
FIRING RANGE

FUTURE STAFF TRAINING
CENTER WITH PARKING

PROPOSED OUTSIDE
WAREHOUSE
PROPOSED UTILITY PLANT
WITH RADIO TOWER

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

APPENDIX C
AIR EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS

Appendix C
March 2016

C-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

C-2

Appendix C
March 2016

TAB A.

SUMMARY

Alternative 1

Activity
Construction
Construction
Operations

Payne Gap/Larson Site

Year
1
2
Yearly

Alternative 2

Activity
Construction
Construction
Operations

VOC
Tons
7.51
7.51
0.70

CO
Tons
31.38
31.38
29.33

NOx
Tons
104.89
104.89
21.36

SO2
Tons
1.83
1.83
0.18

PM10
Tons
217.39
146.89
1.16

PM2.5
CO2
Tons
Metric Tons
26.86
10,913
19.81
10,913
0.58
1,271

CO
Tons
12.90
12.90
29.33

NOx
Tons
38.68
38.68
21.36

SO2
Tons
0.76
0.76
0.18

PM10
Tons
158.52
106.45
1.16

PM2.5
CO2
Tons
Metric Tons
17.87
4,006
12.66
4,006
0.58
1,271

Roxana Site

Year
1
2
Yearly

VOC
Tons
2.99
2.99
0.70

TAB B.

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS

Alternative 1 - Payne Gap/Larson
Table 1.1

Clearing
218 acres

Off-road Equipment
Dozer
Loader/Backhoe
Small Backhoe

Hours of
Operation
2,529
2,529
2,529

Engine HP
145
87
55

Load Factor
0.58
0.21
0.21

Dozer
Loader w/ integral Backhoe
Small backhoe

On-road Equipment
Dump Truck

Hours of
Operation
1,158

Engine HP
230

Speed (mph)
16

Dump Truck
Subtotal in lbs
Clearing Grand Total in Tons
Clearing Grand Total in Metric Tons

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.38
1.43
1.43
VOC
lb
176.60
145.84
92.20

CO
g/hp-hr
1.41
7.35
7.35
CO
lb
663.13
748.63
473.27

NOx
g/hp-hr
4.17
6.35
6.35
NOx
lb
1,956.81
646.67
408.81

SO2
g/hp-hr
0.12
0.15
0.15
SO2
lb
54.03
15.15
9.58

PM10
g/hp-hr
0.30
1.06
1.06
PM10
lb
138.78
108.29
68.46

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.29
1.03
1.03
PM2.5
lb
134.61
105.04
66.41

CO2
g/hp-hr
536
692
692
CO2
lb
251,166
70,450
44,538

VOC
lb/mile
0.0015
VOC
lb
28.56
443
0.22

CO
lb/mile
0.0080
CO
lb
150.98
2036
1.02

NOx
lb/mile
0.0361
NOx
lb
677.18
3689
1.84

SO2
lb/mile
0.0000
SO2
lb
0.34
79
0.04

PM10
lb/mile
0.0015
PM
lb
28.24
344
0.17

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.0015
PM2.5
lb
27.37
333
0.17

CO2
lb/mile
3.4385
CO2
lb
64,555
430709
195.4

Table 1.2
Site Prep
Site Prep - Excavate/Fill (CY) 25,760,829 CY
Grading (SY) 1,055,120 SY
Off-road Equipment
Excavator
Skid Steer Loader
Dozer (Rubber Tired)
Compactor
Grader

Hours
85,869
103,043
93,336
1,297
375

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.34
0.38
0.38
0.40
0.34
VOC
lb
9,334.40
3,203.99
6,630.48
67.51
46.94

Assume compact 0.5 feet (0.166 yards) =
CO
NOx
SO2
PM10
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
1.21
4.03
0.12
0.22
1.47
4.34
0.12
0.31
1.41
4.17
0.12
0.30
1.57
4.57
0.12
0.32
1.21
4.07
0.12
0.23
CO
NOx
SO2
PM
lb
lb
lb
lb
32,820.31 109,366.82
3,128.13
6,047.26
12,288.30
36,268.76
963.29
2,553.02
24,897.59
73,469.64
2,028.50
5,210.52
268.33
780.18
19.69
54.53
164.93
555.75
15.74
30.80

175,150 CY
PM2.5
CO2
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
0.22
536
0.30
536
0.29
536
0.31
536
0.22
536
PM2.5
CO2
lb
lb
5,865.84 14,542,105
2,476.43 4,478,179
5,054.20 9,430,197
52.89
91,526
29.87
73,160

VOC
lb/mile
0.0015

CO
lb/mile
0.0080

NOx
lb/mile
0.0361

SO2
lb/mile
0.0000

PM10
lb/mile
0.0015

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.0015

VOC
lb
4,990.66
24,274
12.14

CO
lb
26,381.47
96,821
48.41

NOx
lb
118,326.87
338,768
169.38

SO2
lb
59.19
6,215
3.11

PM
lb
4,935.37
18,832
9.42

PM2.5
CO2
lb
lb
4,782.13 11,280,045
18,261 39,895,212
9.13
18,096

Dozer
Wheel Loader for Spreading
Compactor

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.34
0.35
0.36
VOC
lb
7.32
4.36
8.56

CO
g/hp-hr
1.21
1.25
1.34
CO
lb
25.69
15.62
31.88

NOx
g/hp-hr
4.08
4.23
4.45
NOx
lb
86.83
52.96
106.02

SO2
g/hp-hr
0.12
0.12
0.12
SO2
lb
2.45
1.44
2.74

PM10
g/hp-hr
0.23
0.24
0.26
PM10
lb
4.81
2.99
6.12

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.22
0.23
0.25
PM2.5
lb
4.67
2.90
5.94

VOC
lb/mile
0.0015
VOC
lb
26.91

CO
lb/mile
0.0080
CO
lb
142.25

NOx
lb/mile
0.0361
NOx
lb
638.01

SO2
lb/mile
0.0000
SO2
lb
0.32

PM10
lb/mile
0.0015
PM10
lb
26.61

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.0015
PM2.5
lb
25.78

CO2
lb/mile
3.4385
CO2
lb
60,821

Engine HP
243
160
145
103
285

Load Factor
0.59
0.23
0.59
0.58
0.58

Excavator
Skid Steer Loader
Dozer (Rubber Tired)
Compactor
Grader

On-road Equipment
Dump Truck (14 CY)

Miles
85,869

MPH

5

Engine HP
230

Dump Truck (12 CY)
Subtotal in lb:
Site Prep Grand Total in Tons
Site Prep Grand Total in Metric Tons
Table 1.3
Off-road Equipment
Dozer
Wheel Loader for Spreading
Compactor

On-road Equipment
Dump Truck

Gravel Work
Hours
88
111
244

Miles
17,688

CO2
lb/mile
3.4385

8,844 CY
Engine HP
185
87
103

Engine HP
230

Dump Truck

Load Factor
0.59
0.59
0.43

CO2
g/hp-hr
536
536
536
CO2
lb
11,403
6,703
12,759

Subtotal (lbs):
Gravel Work Grand Total in Tons
Gravel Work Grand Total in Metric Tons

Table 1.4

Concrete Work
Foundation Work
Sidewalks, etc.
Total

Off-road Equipment
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Truck

Hours of
Operation
375
339

47
0.02

7
0.00

41
0.02

39
0.02

91,686

Note: Assume all excavated soil is accounted for in Excavate/Fill and Trenching

Load Factor
0.43
0.43

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.69
0.38
VOC
lb
0.86
36.60
37
0.02

Concrete Mixer
Concrete Truck
Subtotal (lbs):
Concrete Work Grand Total in Tons
Concrete Work Grand Total in Metric Tons

Table 1.5

884
0.44

42

6,676 CY
445 CY
7,120 CY

Engine HP
3.5
300

215
0.11

CO
g/hp-hr
3.04
1.75
CO
lb
3.79
168.36
172
0.09

Emission Factors
NOx
SO2
PM10
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
6.17
0.13
0.54
6.18
0.11
0.27
Annual Emissions
NOx
SO2
PM
lb
lb
lb
7.68
0.16
0.67
25.91
596.22
10.99
27
604
11
0.30
0.01
0.01

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.52
0.26
PM2.5
lb
0.65
25.14
26
0.01

CO2
g/hp-hr
588
530
CO2
lb
732
51,102
51,834
24

Building Construction
360,497 SF Foundation
802,922 SF Total

Off-road Equipment
Crane
Concrete Truck
Diesel Generator
Telehandler
Scissors Lift
Skid Steer Loader
Pile Driver
All Terrain Forklift

Hours of
Operation
4,015
4,015
3,212
8,029
6,423
4,015
9,295
161

Engine HP
330
300
40
99
83
67
260
84

Load Factor
0.58
0.43
0.43
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.43
0.59

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.25
0.19
0.26
0.51
0.51
1.69
0.46
0.51

CO
g/hp-hr
1.22
1.45
1.41
3.94
3.94
7.97
1.55
3.94

VOC
lb
416.23
214.20
31.97
526.84
353.35
592.11
1063.00
8.94

CO
lb
2065.88
1660.73
171.58
4073.46
2732.10
2787.66
3555.00
69.13

VOC
lb/mile
0.0015
VOC
lb
1319.21
4,526
2.26

CO
lb/mile
0.0080
CO
lb
6973.59
24,089
12.04

Crane
Concrete Truck
Diesel Generator
Telehandler
Scissors Lift
Skid Steer Loader
Pile Driver
All Terrain Forklift

On-road Equipment
Delivery Truck

Hours of
Operation
19,270

Engine HP
265

Speed (mph)
45

Delivery Truck
Subtotal (lbs):
Building Construction Grand Total in Tons
Building Construction Grand Total in Metric Tons

Paving
Pavement - Surface Area
Paving - HMA
Hours of
Off-road Equipment
Operation
Engine HP
Grader
717
145
Roller
1,076
401
Paving Machine
1,434
164
Asphalt Curbing Machine
143
130

Emission Factors
NOx
SO2
PM10
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
5.26
0.11
0.21
4.32
0.12
0.21
3.51
0.11
0.23
4.93
0.13
0.52
4.93
0.13
0.52
6.70
0.15
1.19
5.90
0.11
0.31
4.93
0.13
0.52
Annual Emissions
NOx
SO2
PM
lb
lb
lb
8910.25
193.24
351.89
4933.15
131.71
239.84
427.25
13.14
28.24
5096.29
132.25
538.81
3418.12
88.70
361.38
2343.40
51.99
416.05
13520.50
260.50
719.00
86.48
2.24
9.14
NOx
lb/mile
0.0361
NOx
lb
31278.14
70,014
35.01

SO2
lb/mile
0.0000
SO2
lb
15.65
889
0.44

PM
lb/mile
0.0015
PM
lb
1304.60
3,969
1.98

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.20
0.20
0.22
0.51
0.51
1.15
0.30
0.51

CO2
g/hp-hr
530
536
536
595
595
691
530
595

PM2.5
lb
341.33
232.65
27.39
522.64
350.54
403.57
697.00
8.87

CO2
lb
898,343
612,276
65,301
614,797
412,349
241,715
1,213,343
10,433

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.0015
PM2.5
lb
1264.09
3,848
1.92

CO2
lb/mile
3.4385
CO2
lb
2,981,731
7,050,288
3,198

Table 1.6

234,173 SF
117,087 CF
Load Factor
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59

Grader
Roller

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.38
0.34
0.38
0.40
VOC
lb
50.91
191.53

4,337 CY
CO
g/hp-hr
1.41
2.46
1.44
1.57
CO
lb
191.01
1,381.86

NOx
g/hp-hr
4.16
5.53
4.25
4.57
NOx
lb
562.86
3,105.60

SO2
g/hp-hr
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
SO2
lb
15.59
64.67

PM
g/hp-hr
0.30
0.34
0.30
0.32
PM
lb
40.00
190.04

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.29
0.33
0.29
0.31
PM2.5
lb
38.80
184.34

CO2
g/hp-hr
536
536
536
536
CO2
lb
72,458
300,633

On-road Equipment
Dump Truck
Water Truck

Hours of
Operation
865
23

Paving Machine
Asphalt Curbing Machine

116.27
9.58

441.36
38.09

1,301.01
110.74

35.26
2.79

91.79
7.74

89.04
7.51

163,901
12,991

Productivity
based Speed
0
10

VOC
lb/mile
0.001521
0.001521
VOC
lb
21.99
0.35

CO
lb/mile
0.008042
0.008042
CO
lb
116.26
1.85

NOx
lb/mile
0.036070
0.036070
NOx
lb
521.44
8.28

SO2
lb/mile
1.80E-05
1.80E-05
SO2
lb
0.26
0.00

PM
lb/mile
0.001504
0.001504
PM
lb
21.75
0.35

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.001458
0.001458
PM2.5
lb
21.07
0.33

CO2
lb/mile
3.438541
3.438541
CO2
lb
49,709
789

PM10
lb
352
0.18

PM2.5
lb
341
0.17

CO2
lb
600,480

Engine HP
230
230

Dump Truck
Water Truck

Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Standard Hot Mix Asphalt

Table 1.7.

Volume of
Weight of
HMA
HMA (tons)
(ft3)
117,087
8,489

VOC
lb/ton
0.04
Subtotal (lbs):
Paving Grand Total in Tons
Paving Grand Total in Metric Tons

Year
Year 1
Year 2

Fugitive Dust Emissions
PM 10
tons/acre/
mo
acres
0.42
65.40
0.42
43.60

Year
Year 1
Year 2

Total Emissions
VOC
Tons
7.51
7.51

Table 1.8

CO
Tons
31.38
31.38

VOC
lb
339.55
730
0.37

NOx
Tons
104.89
104.89

2,170
1.09

NOx
lb
5,610
2.80

SO2
lb
119
0.06

272

days of
disturbance
154
154

CO
lb
-

PM2.5/
PM10 Total
211.5
141.0

PM10 Ratio
0.1
0.1

PM2.5 Total
21.2
14.1

SO2
Tons
1.83
1.83

PM10
Tons
217.39
146.89

PM2.5
CO2
Tons
Metric Tons
26.86
10,913
19.81
10,913

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.38
1.43
1.43
VOC
lb
130.42
107.70
68.09

CO
g/hp-hr
1.41
7.35
7.35
CO
lb
489.74
552.88
349.52

NOx
g/hp-hr
4.17
6.35
6.35
NOx
lb
1,445.16
477.59
301.92

SO2
g/hp-hr
0.12
0.15
0.15
SO2
lb
39.90
11.19
7.07

PM10
g/hp-hr
0.30
1.06
1.06
PM10
lb
102.49
79.98
50.56

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.29
1.03
1.03
PM2.5
lb
99.42
77.58
49.04

CO2
g/hp-hr
536
692
692
CO2
lb
185,494
52,030
32,892

VOC
lb/mile
0.0015

CO
lb/mile
0.0080

NOx
lb/mile
0.0361

SO2
lb/mile
0.0000

PM10
lb/mile
0.0015

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.0015

CO2
lb/mile
3.4385

VOC
lb
21.09
327
0.16

CO
lb
111.50
1504
0.75

NOx
lb
500.12
2725
1.36

SO2
lb
0.25
58
0.03

PM
lb
20.86
254
0.13

PM2.5
lb
20.21
246
0.12

CO2
lb
47,676
318092

Alternative 2 - Roxana
Table 2.1

Clearing
161 acres

Off-road Equipment
Dozer
Loader/Backhoe
Small Backhoe

Hours of
Operation
1,868
1,868
1,868

Engine HP
145
87
55

Load Factor
0.58
0.21
0.21

Dozer
Loader w/ integral Backhoe
Small backhoe

On-road Equipment
Dump Truck

Hours of
Operation

855

Engine HP
230

Speed (mph)
16

Dump Truck
Subtotal in lbs
Clearing Grand Total in Tons
Clearing Grand Total in Metric Tons

144.3

Table 2.2
Site Prep
Site Prep - Excavate/Fill (CY) 8,124,680 CY
Grading (SY)
779,240 SY
Off-road Equipment
Excavator
Skid Steer Loader
Dozer (Rubber Tired)
Compactor
Grader

Hours
27,082
32,499
29,437
958
277

Engine HP
243
160
145
103
285

Load Factor
0.59
0.23
0.59
0.58
0.58

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.34
0.38
0.38
0.40
0.34
VOC

Assume compact 0.5 feet (0.166 yards) =
CO
NOx
SO2
PM10
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
1.21
4.03
0.12
0.22
1.47
4.34
0.12
0.31
1.41
4.17
0.12
0.30
1.57
4.57
0.12
0.32
1.21
4.07
0.12
0.23
CO
NOx
SO2
PM

787,517 CY
PM2.5
CO2
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
0.22
536
0.30
536
0.29
536
0.31
536
0.22
536
PM2.5
CO2

lb
2,943.97
1,010.50
2,091.18
49.86
34.67

lb
10,351.16
3,875.59
7,852.42
198.17
121.81

lb
34,493.08
11,438.76
23,171.51
576.19
410.44

lb
986.58
303.81
639.77
14.54
11.62

lb
1,907.24
805.19
1,643.34
40.27
22.75

lb
1,850.02
781.04
1,594.04
39.06
22.06

lb
4,586,419
1,412,368
2,974,180
67,595
54,031

VOC
lb/mile
0.0015

CO
lb/mile
0.0080

NOx
lb/mile
0.0361

SO2
lb/mile
0.0000

PM10
lb/mile
0.0015

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.0015

CO2
lb/mile
3.4385

VOC
lb
206.00
6,336
3.17

CO
lb
1,088.97
23,488
11.74

NOx
lb
4,884.29
74,974
37.49

SO2
lb
2.44
1,959
0.98

PM
lb
203.72
4,623
2.31

PM2.5
lb
197.40
4,484
2.24

CO2
lb
465,617
9,560,210

Excavator
Skid Steer Loader
Dozer (Rubber Tired)
Compactor
Grader

On-road Equipment
Dump Truck (14 CY)

Hours
27,082

MPH

5

Engine HP
230

Dump Truck (12 CY)
Subtotal in lb:
Site Prep Grand Total in Tons
Site Prep Grand Total in Metric Tons
Table 2.3

Gravel Work

Off-road Equipment

On-road Equipment
Dump Truck

8,571 CY

Dozer
Wheel Loader for Spreading
Compactor

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.34
0.35
0.36
VOC
lb
7.09
4.23
8.30

CO
g/hp-hr
1.21
1.25
1.34
CO
lb
24.90
15.13
30.90

NOx
g/hp-hr
4.08
4.23
4.45
NOx
lb
84.15
51.33
102.75

SO2
g/hp-hr
0.12
0.12
0.12
SO2
lb
2.38
1.40
2.66

PM10
g/hp-hr
0.23
0.24
0.26
PM10
lb
4.66
2.89
5.93

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.22
0.23
0.25
PM2.5
lb
4.52
2.81
5.76

VOC
lb/mile
0.0015
VOC
lb
26.08
46
0.02

CO
lb/mile
0.0080
CO
lb
137.86
209
0.10

NOx
lb/mile
0.0361
NOx
lb
618.31
857
0.43

SO2
lb/mile
0.0000
SO2
lb
0.31
7
0.00

PM10
lb/mile
0.0015
PM10
lb
25.79
39
0.02

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.0015
PM2.5
lb
24.99
38
0.02

CO2
lb/mile
3.4385
CO2
lb
58,943
88,855

Hours

Dozer
Wheel Loader for Spreading
Compactor

Engine HP
185
87
103

86
107
236

Miles
17,142

Load Factor
0.59
0.59
0.43

Engine HP
230

Dump Truck
Subtotal (lbs):
Gravel Work Grand Total in Tons
Gravel Work Grand Total in Metric Tons

Table 2.4

Off-road Equipment
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Truck

Concrete Work
Foundation Work
Sidewalks, etc.
Total
Hours of
Operation
375
339

6,676 CY
445 CY
7,120 CY

Engine HP
3.5
300

Off-road Equipment
Crane
Concrete Truck
Diesel Generator
Telehandler
Scissors Lift
Skid Steer Loader
Pile Driver
All Terrain Forklift

CO2
g/hp-hr
536
536
536
CO2
lb
11,051
6,496
12,366

40

Load Factor
0.43
0.43

Concrete Mixer
Concrete Truck
Subtotal (lbs):
Concrete Work Grand Total in Tons
Concrete Work Grand Total in Metric Tons

Table 2.5

4,336

Note: Assume all excavated soil is accounted for in Excavate/Fill and Trenching
VOC
g/hp-hr
0.69
0.38
VOC
lb
0.86
36.60
37
0.02

CO
g/hp-hr
3.04
1.75
CO
lb
3.79
168.36
172
0.09

Emission Factors
NOx
SO2
PM10
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
6.17
0.13
0.54
6.18
0.11
0.27
Annual Emissions
NOx
SO2
PM
lb
lb
lb
7.68
0.16
0.67
25.91
596.22
10.99
27
604
11
0.30
0.01
0.01

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.52
0.26
PM2.5
lb
0.65
25.14
26
0.01

CO2
g/hp-hr
588
530
CO2
lb
732
51,102
51,834
24

Building Construction
360,497 SF Foundation
802,922 SF Total
Hours of
Operation
4,015
4,015
3,212
8,029
6,423
4,015
9,295
161

Engine HP
330
300
40
99
83
67
260
84

Load Factor
0.58
0.43
0.43
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.43
0.59

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.25
0.19
0.26
0.51
0.51
1.69
0.46
0.51

CO
g/hp-hr
1.22
1.45
1.41
3.94
3.94
7.97
1.55
3.94

Emission Factors
NOx
SO2
PM10
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
g/hp-hr
5.26
0.11
0.21
4.32
0.12
0.21
3.51
0.11
0.23
4.93
0.13
0.52
4.93
0.13
0.52
6.70
0.15
1.19
5.90
0.11
0.31
4.93
0.13
0.52

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.20
0.20
0.22
0.51
0.51
1.15
0.30
0.51

CO2
g/hp-hr
530
536
536
595
595
691
530
595

VOC
lb
416.23
214.20
31.97
526.84
353.35
592.11
1063.00
8.94

CO
lb
2065.88
1660.73
171.58
4073.46
2732.10
2787.66
3555.00
69.13

VOC
lb/mile
0.0015
VOC
lb
1319.21
4,526
2.26

CO
lb/mile
0.0080
CO
lb
6973.59
24,089
12.04

Crane
Concrete Truck
Diesel Generator
Telehandler
Scissors Lift
Skid Steer Loader
Pile Driver
All Terrain Forklift

On-road Equipment
Delivery Truck

Hours of
Operation
19,270

Engine HP
265

Speed (mph)
45

Delivery Truck
Subtotal (lbs):
Building Construction Grand Total in Tons
Building Construction Grand Total in Metric Tons

Paving
Pavement - Surface Area
Paving - HMA
Hours of
Off-road Equipment
Operation
Engine HP
Grader
627
145
Roller
940
401
Paving Machine
1,253
164
Asphalt Curbing Machine
125
130

Annual Emissions
NOx
SO2
lb
lb
8910.25
193.24
4933.15
131.71
427.25
13.14
5096.29
132.25
3418.12
88.70
2343.40
51.99
13520.50
260.50
86.48
2.24
NOx
lb/mile
0.0361
NOx
lb
31278.14
70,014
35.01

SO2
lb/mile
0.0000
SO2
lb
15.65
889
0.44

PM
lb
351.89
239.84
28.24
538.81
361.38
416.05
719.00
9.14

PM2.5
lb
341.33
232.65
27.39
522.64
350.54
403.57
697.00
8.87

CO2
lb
898,343
612,276
65,301
614,797
412,349
241,715
1,213,343
10,433

PM
lb/mile
0.0015
PM
lb
1304.60
3,969
1.98

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.0015
PM2.5
lb
1264.09
3,848
1.92

CO2
lb/mile
3.4385
CO2
lb
2,981,731
7,050,288
3,198

Table 2.6

204,645 SF
102,323 CF
Load Factor
0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59

Grader
Roller
Paving Machine
Asphalt Curbing Machine

On-road Equipment
Dump Truck
Water Truck

Hours of
Operation
756
20

Engine HP
230
230

Productivity
based Speed
17
10

Dump Truck
Water Truck

Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)
Standard Hot Mix Asphalt

Volume of
Weight of
HMA
HMA (tons)
3
(ft )
102,323
7,418

VOC
lb/ton
0.04
Subtotal (lbs):
Paving Grand Total in Tons
Paving Grand Total in Metric Tons

3,790 CY

VOC
g/hp-hr
0.38
0.34
0.38
0.40
VOC
lb
50.91
191.53
116.27
9.58

CO
g/hp-hr
1.41
2.46
1.44
1.57
CO
lb
191.01
1,381.86
441.36
38.09

NOx
g/hp-hr
4.16
5.53
4.25
4.57
NOx
lb
562.86
3,105.60
1,301.01
110.74

SO2
g/hp-hr
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
SO2
lb
15.59
64.67
35.26
2.79

PM
g/hp-hr
0.30
0.34
0.30
0.32
PM
lb
40.00
190.04
91.79
7.74

PM2.5
g/hp-hr
0.29
0.33
0.29
0.31
PM2.5
lb
38.80
184.34
89.04
7.51

CO2
g/hp-hr
536
536
536
536
CO2
lb
72,458
300,633
163,901
12,991

VOC
lb/mile
0.001521
0.001521
VOC
lb
19.22
0.31

CO
lb/mile
0.008042
0.008042
CO
lb
101.60
1.61

NOx
lb/mile
0.036070
0.036070
NOx
lb
455.69
7.23

SO2
lb/mile
1.80E-05
1.80E-05
SO2
lb
0.23
0.00

PM
lb/mile
0.001504
0.001504
PM
lb
19.01
0.30

PM2.5
lb/mile
0.001458
0.001458
PM2.5
lb
18.42
0.29

CO2
lb/mile
3.438541
3.438541
CO2
lb
43,441
690

PM10
lb
349
0.17

PM2.5
lb
338
0.17

CO2
lb
594,113

VOC
lb
296.74
685
0.34

CO
lb
2,156
1.08

NOx
lb
5,543
2.77

SO2
lb
119
0.06

269.48

Table 2.7. Fugitive Dust Emissions

Year
Year 1
Year 2

Table 2.8
Year
Year 1
Year 2

PM 10
tons/acre/
mo
0.42
0.42

Total Emissions
VOC
Tons
2.99
2.99

days of
acres
48.30
32.20

CO
Tons
12.90
12.90

disturbance
154
154

NOx
Tons
38.68
38.68

PM2.5/
PM10 Total
156.2
104.1

SO2
Tons
0.76
0.76

PM10 Ratio
0.1
0.1

PM10
Tons
158.52
106.45

PM2.5 Total
15.6
10.4

PM2.5
CO2
Tons
Metric Tons
17.87
4,006
12.66
4,006

TAB C.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS

Factory-fabricated and assembled water-tube flexible tube boilers, dual fired natural gas and fuel oil.
Two diesel Emergency Generators -2 megawatts each or

2682 HP each

Table 1. Operational Emissions - Emergency Generators
Assume the IC engines are typically operated 0.5 hours per week for testing and maintenance =

26 hr/yr

Assume additional five 24-hour periods for total power outages per year =

Pollutant

120 hr/yr
146 Total Hours

Emission Factors
Diesel Fuel a, b
> 447 kW

Generator
kW
2000

#
2
Tons/yr

VOC

CO

NOx

SO2

PM

CO2

lb/yr
503
0.25

lb/yr
4,307
2.15

lb/yr
10,181
5.09

lb/yr
10
0.00

lb/yr
548
0.27

lb/yr
908,447
454

NOx
PM

412

SO2

metric tons/yr

lb/hp-hr
CO

c

S
d

VOC
CO2
b

0.0055
0.013
0.0007
0.00809 S
0.0015
0.000642
1.16

Emission factors from U.S. EPA. Compilation of Air Pollutant

Emission Factors - Volume I (AP-42), Section 3.4, 5th Edition; .
factors based upon power output
c
The variable S in the emissions factor equals the sulfur
content of the fuel expressed as percent weight.
VOC = TOC - methane (9%)

d

SO2 factor was assumed to equal 0.0015 for diesel fuel.

Table 2. Operational Parameters - Boilers
1-02-005-02/03, 1-03-005-02/03
Distillate oil fired Boilers <100 Million Btu/hr
Example boiler that is < 100 MM Btu:

Emission Factor
Pollutant (lb/103 gal)a,b

Heat Input
(MMBtu/hr)a

Fuel Type

Annual
Hours of
Operation

15
15

Oil
Oil

5100
5100

Total est. quantity of oil consumed annually
140,000 btu/gal fuel oil
Assume heat 10/15 to 4/14

Est. Qty Oil
consumed
Annually
(gal)
759,900
759,900
1,519,800 gal

149 gal/hour fuel consumption @
80 % efficiency

CO

5

NOx
PM10

20
1

PM2.5
SO2
VOC
CO2
N2O
CH4

0.25
0.213
0.34
22,300
0.26
0.216

0.0015 Percent Sulfur content in fuel

a

182 heating days
183 non heating days

Emission factors from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation

of Air Pollutant Emission Factors - Volume I (AP-42), Section 1.3, 5th Edition.
b
3
Emission factors based on burning fuel oil with a heating value of 140 MMBtu/10 gal

Table 3. Annual Emissions for Boilers
Annual Emissions in lbs
PM10
PM2.5

Emission Source

VOC

CO

NOx

SO2

Boiler 1
Boiler 2

258
258

3800
3800

15198
15198

162
162

760
760

0.26

3.80

15.20

0.16

0.76

Total in Tons/yr

CO2

N2O

CH4

190
190

3800
3800

198
198

164
164

0.19

3.80

0.20

0.16

CO2e =

62

metric tons/yr

Table 4. Total Annual Emissions for All Equipment
Stationary Source
Generators
Boilers
Total

VOC t/yr
0.25
0.26
0.51

CO t/yr
2.15
3.80
5.95

Table 5. Commuting Staff

NOx t/yr
5.09
15.20
20.29

SO2 t/yr
0.00
0.16
0.17

300 per day
3

Vehicles
passenger vehicles

PM10 t/yr PM2.5 t/yr CO2e MT/yr
0.27
0.27
412
0.76
0.19
62
1.03
0.46
474

# vehicles
300

# days
365

4

mi/day
40

Tons per Year
Metric Tons per Year

VOCs

lb/mi
8.593E-05

3

CO

3

NOx

3

SO2

3

PM10

lb/mi
5.68927E-05

3

PM2.5

lb/mi
1.067E-02

lb/mi
4.873E-04

lb/mi
7.357E-06

lb/mi
5.19227E-05

VOCs
lb
376.36

CO
lb
46755.73

NOx
lb
2134.28

SO2
lb
32.23

PM10
lb
249.19

PM2.5
lb
227.42

0.19

23.38

1.07

0.02

0.12

0.11

CO2e in metric tons/year

Table 6. Total Annual Operating Emissions from Stationary Sources and Commuters

Operating Emissions

VOC t/yr
0.70

CO t/yr
29.33

NOx t/yr
21.36

SO2 t/yr
0.18

PM10 t/yr PM2.5 t/yr CO2e MT/yr
1.16
0.58
1,271

4,5

CO2

g/mi
182.00
CO2
g
797,160,000
797
797

TAB D.

CONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS

Buildings Common to both alternatives

Project Name

Clearing (AC)

Central Utility Plant
Firing Range
Outside Warehouse
UNICOR Warehouse*
Staff Training Bldg
Penitentiary
Prison Camp
Roads/Parking - Payne Gap
Fill/Excavate - Payne Gap
Grading - Payne Gap
Clearing Payne Gap
Payne Gap
Total
Roads/Parking - Roxana
Fill/Excavate - Roxana
Grading - Roxana
Clearing Roxana
Roxana
Total

Grading
(SY)

Site Prep Building
Building
Foundation
Excavate/Fill Construction - Construction - Foundation
footprint
(CY)
Total Size (sm) Total Size (sf) footprint (sm)
(sf)

1,217
96
3,279
1,375
910
61,654
6,063

13,100
1,033
35,295
14,800
9,795
663,637
65,262

1,217
96
3,279
1,375
910
20,551
6,063

13,100
1,033
35,295
14,800
9,795
221,212
65,262

# Stories

Paving (CY)

1
1
1
1
1
3
1

16
1
44
18
12
273
80

243
19
654
274
181
4,097
1,209

4,337

243
19
654
274
181
4,097
1,209
2,168

4,337
3,790

8,844
1,895

445

6,676

3,790

8,571

445

6,676

25,760,829
1,055,120
218
218 1,055,120 25,760,829

74,594

802,922

33,491

360,497

8,124,680
779,240
161
161

779,240

8,124,680

74,594

33,491

Note: *The Air Emissions Calculations were prepared prior to the removal of UNICOR operation from the proposed action.

300 full-time staff
Alternative 1.

Payne Gap/Larson

753 acres
218
2,794,660
8,117,470
1,540,797
13,307,902

acres cleared
CY soil excavation
CY rock excavation
CY structural fill
CY spoil fill

Road Estimates
Entry road/to warehouses

Gravel
Work (CY)

Concrete
Concrete
Work Work sidewalks, foundation
etc (CY)
(CY)

10,912,130 CY total excavation
14,848,699 CY total fill

Assume road width of
900 m

18 feet
2,953 ft

Total excavation + fill= 25,760,829

USP access
Camp access

600 m
2000 m

Parking/paved areas
27,480 sf total

Alternative 2
700
161
2,928,922
902,757
2,087,607
2,205,394
25

1,969 ft
6,562 ft
11,483 ft total
206,693 SF total
Require parking for 100 vehicles per shift; overlap; visitors; deliveries

Roxana
acres
acres cleared
CY soil excavated
CY rock excavated
CY structural fill
CY spoil fill
ac dynamic compaction

3,831,679 CY total excavation
4,293,001 CY total fill

Road Estimates

Assume road width of
Total length

18
3000
9,843
177,165

feet
m
ft total
SF total

Parking/paved areas
27,480 sf total

Require parking for 100 vehicles per shift; overlap; visitors; deliveries

Total excavation + fill=

8,124,680

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

APPENDIX D
ENHANCED UTILITY REPORT

Appendix D
March 2016

D-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Note: The Enhanced Utility Report was prepared prior to the removal of UNICOR operation
from the proposed action.

D-2

Appendix D
March 2016

Enhanced Utility Investigation
Report
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Letcher County, Kentucky

Prepared by:

United States Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First St NW
Washington, DC 20534

October 2014

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2011, Cardno (formerly TEC Inc.) was retained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to conduct a
Feasibility Study for the development of a 1,800-bed federal correctional facility to be located at one of
three identified sites located near the town of Whitesburg in Letcher County, Kentucky (KY). As part of
the Feasibility Study, a Utility Investigation Report was prepared in order to assess the viability and costs
associated with providing utilities to each site. The purpose of the utility report was to assess the
availability of water, sanitary sewer, natural gas, electricity, and telecommunications for each of the
proposed locations.
The results of the Feasibility Study have allowed the project to proceed into the next phase, which
includes the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). At the conclusion of the
Feasibility Study, it was determined that one of the three potential sites is not a viable option for
constructing a new BOP correctional facility and therefore the EIS includes the assessment of only two
sites. Also, since the conclusion of the Feasibility Study, the size of the facility has been reduced to a
1,200-bed correctional facility. To address this change and account for any other possible changes to the
utilities over the past three years, the EIS includes the preparation of this Enhanced Utility Investigation
Report. This “enhanced” report replaces the initial Utility Study. All information presented in the original
report has been updated to reflect the changes associated with the various utility systems. All pertinent
utility information is incorporated into this Enhanced Utility Investigation Report.
It is assumed that the on-site utility requirements would be comparable for both sites and that the factors
determining the most viable and cost effective option would be related to connecting each of the potential
sites to the existing utility infrastructure. Therefore, on-site utilities have not been included in this
assessment. The two sites included in this report are Roxana/Meade Farm and Payne Gap, both of which
are located within 10 miles of the town of Whitesburg. To determine viability of bringing the utilities to
both identified sites, the capacity of the existing utility systems and the distance from the proposed
connection points were assessed and cost estimates were prepared.
For both sites, water service has been extended or is in the process of being extended to the property lines
and the wastewater utility providers have indicated that they intend to extend their existing systems to the
proposed sites at no cost to BOP; however, it is likely that BOP will need to provide some cost sharing for
the sanitary sewer extension to the Roxana site, if it is selected. Conversations with American Electric
Power (AEP), the power provider for both sites, indicate that the existing system has ample capacity to
handle the facility at either of the potential locations and there would be no costs to BOP associated with
the AEP connection, assuming overhead connections. The telecommunications lines also have adequate
capacity to provide service to both sites, but BOP will be responsible for the cost of the necessary
infrastructure to connect to the existing telecommunications systems. For the natural gas connection, both
sites would require the installation of a meter and tap, which would be the responsibility of BOP. This
cost would be comparable at both sites. At the Roxana/Meade Farm site there are multiple gas wells that
would need to be closed and abandoned and lines that need to be relocated. This would require a BOP
investment of approximately $12.8 million. Similarly there is a well at the Payne Gap site that would
need to be abandoned and a 16-inch natural gas line that would need to be relocated around the perimeter
of the site. These costs are estimated at $5 million.
With respect to capital investment for all utilities, the Roxana site is more costly by nearly $7 million.
However, the time associated with abandoning the wells is about six months, compared to a minimum of
ES-1

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

two years to relocate the 16-inch gas line at Payne Gap. These cost and schedule factors associated with
the natural gas components are critical to the site selection recommendation as it pertains to the utilities.
All other utility costs and scheduling factors are relatively comparable and have negligible impacts on site
selection.
In addition to identifying the most viable location for the construction of a new BOP federal correctional
facility, this study identifies some potential options for implementing alternative energy and sustainability
practices at the new facility. Kentucky does not lie within a prime area of the country that supports the
implementation of a primary wind, solar, or geothermal alternative energy system. However, solar and
geothermal systems could be further evaluated for supplementing the power systems at the new facility.
This evaluation would be needed after site selection is complete and detailed design planning commences.
Additionally, the implementation of practices such as gray water disposal, water reduction efforts, and
installation of green roof technology should also be considered during design to help meet sustainability
goals.

ES-2

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0

BACKGROUND INFORMATION .................................................................................................................................. 2

3.0

DESIGN CRITERIA .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1

Utility Systems ................................................................................................................................................... 3
3.1.1

Water .......................................................................................................................................................................3

3.1.3

Natural Gas ............................................................................................................................................................4

3.1.2
3.1.4
4.0

3.1.5

Electric ....................................................................................................................................................................4
Telecommunications.........................................................................................................................................4

UTILITY PROVIDERS..................................................................................................................................................... 5
4.1
4.2

5.0

Sanitary Sewer .....................................................................................................................................................4

Roxana/Meade Farm ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Payne Gap ......................................................................................................................................................... 10

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................................................... 14
5.1

Alternative Energy ........................................................................................................................................ 14
5.1.1

Wind Energy ...................................................................................................................................................... 15

5.1.3

Geothermal Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 17

5.1.2
5.1.4

Photovoltaics ..................................................................................................................................................... 16

Biomass Energy ................................................................................................................................................ 18

5.2 Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................................... 19
6.0

CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 20

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 – Field Photographs............................................................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix 2 – Site Investigation Utility Meetings Memo .............................................................................................................. 31

i

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 - Potential BOP Federal Correctional Facility Locations ......................................................................................... 1

Figure 4-1 - Existing Utilities at Roxana/Meade Farm Site .......................................................................................................... 9

Figure 4-2 - Existing Utilities at Payne Gap Site ..............................................................................................................................13

Figure 5-1 - Kentucky Wind Map ...........................................................................................................................................................15

Figure 5-2 - Photovoltaic Solar Resource of the U.S. .....................................................................................................................16

Figure 5-3 - Geothermal Resource of the U.S. ...................................................................................................................................17

Figure 5-4 - Biomass Resources Available in the U.S. ...................................................................................................................18

LIST OF TABLES
Table 4-1 – Utility Providers ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 4-2 – Roxana/Meade Farm Utility Service Opinion of Probable Cost ......................................................................... 7

Table 4-3 – Payne Gap Utility Service Opinion of Probable Cost .............................................................................................11
Table 6-1 – Utility Connection - Probable Cost Comparison......................................................................................................20

ii

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Cardno has been retained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for the development of a 1,200-bed federal correctional facility in Letcher County,
Kentucky (KY). Two potential sites located near the town of Whitesburg are currently being considered
for the construction of the new facility, as illustrated in Figure 1-1.
The two potential sites are identified as Roxana/Meade Farm and Payne Gap. As depicted in Figure 1, the
Roxana/Meade Farm site is located less than 10 miles to the west of Whitesburg and the Payne Gap site is
located on the Kentucky-Virginia border, less than 10 miles to the east of Whitesburg. This report is being
prepared in coordination with the EIS and is designed to investigate the availability, cost, and feasibility
of providing utilities to both of the potential sites, identify the pros and cons for each of the sites, and
develop recommendations for potential development.

Figure 1-1 - Potential BOP Federal Correctional Facility Locations

1

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This “Enhanced” Utility Investigation Report is an enhancement to the Utility Investigation Report
prepared for BOP in 2011. In 2011, Cardno (formerly TEC Inc.) was retained by BOP to prepare the
initial Utility Investigation Report, in which three sites were considered. In addition to the two sites that
remain under consideration, the third site included the Van Fields Site, just north of Whitesburg, on Route
15.
Prior to the initial Utility Investigation Report, several studies had previously been performed in support
of the potential construction of a new federal correctional facility at the three potential sites. These
studies include:
•
•
•

Site Reconnaissance Study prepared by the Louis Berger Group (November 2008)
Mine History Reports (each site) prepared by Summit Engineering (August 2010)
Site Investigation Trip Memo prepared by KCI Technologies (October 2010)

Information from each of these studies was utilized in developing background information, baseline data
starting points, initial contact information, and additional evaluation criteria.
The Site Investigation Trip memo (KCI 2010) provided ranking criteria for the potential sites. Based on a
scale of 1 to 5 (1 being the highest), the average utilities rank for the three sites ranged from 2.25 to 3.25,
indicating the results of the initial utility assessment were fairly comparable for the three potential sites.
However, based on other concerns associated with past mining, accessibility, and excavation
requirements, KCI recommended that the Payne Gap site be removed from consideration. Since the
purpose of this report is to further assess the utilities, the BOP decided to continue to include the Payne
Gap site in this study, as it is still a feasible option.
Several other studies were performed concurrently with the initial Utility Investigation Report. One such
study was a Topographical and Boundary survey performed by Marshall Miller and Associates (MMA).
This survey has allowed realistic layouts of the facilities to be developed within the property boundaries.
The layouts along with the elevations at the site will be imperative for infrastructure design, most
importantly for establishing requirements for water distribution and sanitary sewer lift stations.

2

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

3.0 DESIGN CRITERIA
This section describes the utility needs for the proposed BOP federal correctional facility and the utility
design criteria to meet those needs. The initial basis for utility design criteria was outlined in the Site
Reconnaissance Study prepared by the Louis Berger Group in November 2008. The criteria outlined in
the Site Reconnaissance Study were based on a 1,400 bed facility. This was utilized as an initial starting
point for discussions with the local utility providers to determine if the required minimum demand was
available, and if not, what would be required to provide utilities to the potential sites. In addition to the
minimum criteria, the potential for increased capacity due to future expansions and plans was
investigated. The initial population of 1,400 beds for the proposed BOP facility, as discussed in the Site
Reconnaissance Study, was initially increased to a 1,800 bed facility in the initial Utility Investigation
Report, but has been decreased to a 1,200 bed facility in this final study.

3.1 Utility Systems
The design criteria used to assess the utilities in this report are based on providing utilities to the US
Penitentiary (USP) and Federal Prison Camp (FPC) facilities. The total capacity for these two facilities is
1,200 inmates and it is estimated that approximately 300 full-time staff would be required to operate the
two facilities as well as the ancillary support facilities listed below. The utility usage estimated in this
section is based on providing utilities to similar types and sizes of facilities.
USP and FPC Support Facilities
• Central Utility Plant
1,217 square feet
• Firing Range
96 square feet
• Outside Warehouse
3,279 square feet
• UNICOR Warehouse
1,375 square feet
• Staff Training Building
910 square feet
3.1.1
•

Water

Average Water Demand:
 USP and FPC Facilities: 215 gallons per day (gpd) per bed x 1,200 beds = 258,000 gpd
 Utility Plant: 2,000 gpd per acre x 0.03 acres = 60 gpd
 Warehouses: 1,000 gpd per acre x 0.1 acres = 100 gpd
 Training Building: 20 gpd per person x 300 people = 6,000 gpd
Total Average Water Demand = 264,160 gpd or approximately 185 gallons per minute (gpm)

•

•
•
•
•

Peak Water Demand:
 4 times average water demand
 185 gpm x 4 = 740 gpm
Fire Flow Requirement: 2,000 gpm for four hours
Minimum Water Pressure: 40 pounds per square inch (psi)
Preferred Water Pressure: 80 psi
Water Storage Capacity: 500,000 gallons
[The utility provider must be able to meet peak demands and fire flow requirements during select
periods when the tank is taken off-line for maintenance and repairs]

3

BOP – Letcher County
3.1.2
•

•

Sanitary Sewer

Natural Gas

Usage based on typical correctional facility:
 Annual Energy Usage: 50 – 70 million cubic feet (mcf)
 Maximum Hourly Usage: 25,000 – 28,000 cubic feet per hour (cfph)
 Maximum Daily Usage: 250,000 – 280,000 cubic feet (cf)

3.1.4

•

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

Average Wastewater Flow:
 85% of Average Water Demand
 264,160 gpd x 0.85 ~ 225,000 gpd
 156 gpm
Peak Wastewater Flow:
 3.5 times average wastewater flow
 156 gpm x 3.5 = 546 gpm

3.1.3

•

**DRAFT**

Electric

Usage based on typical correctional facility:
 System Requirements: 12–15 kilovolt (kV) system with 3-phases and 4-wire components
 Average Energy Usage: 18 – 19 million kilowatt hours (kWh)
 Demand Load: 4,500 – 5,000 kilowatts (kW)
 On-site Transformer Requirements: 5,000 kilovolt ampere (kVa)

3.1.5

Telecommunications

Telecommunications service also includes internet and security connections for communications with
outside correctional officials and facilities. The minimum requirements for new construction, generally
coordinated through the local telecommunications company, include:
•
•
•
•

Primary Rate Interface (PRI) T1 for the Federal Telecommunications System
Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) T1 for local calls
200 pair copper
400 continuous Direct Inward Dialing (D.I.D.) numbers

4

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

4.0 UTILITY PROVIDERS
The information regarding utility providers for the five utility systems listed in Section 3.0 was gathered
through phone conversations, email communications, and on-site meetings held with the individual utility
providers for each of the sites during the preparation of the initial Utility Investigation Report.
The Letcher County Water and Sewer District (LWSD) provides sanitary sewer service to the
Roxana/Meade Farm site through the Whitesburg Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The
Whitesburg WWTP was recently upgraded in anticipation of the proposed BOP federal correctional
facility to a capacity of 600,000 gpd with an average load of 300,000 gpd. The facility was built with the
ability to phase-in upgrades as necessary to handle additional flows.
The LWSD is in the process of upgrading and connecting all of the county’s water systems in order to
provide redundancy in the system. These plans have included connections between all the existing water
systems, and new connections in the city of Jenkins and Fleming Neon. Water service has been or is in
the process of being extended to both potential BOP sites.
American Electric Power (AEP) provides electricity in the vicinity of both sites. AEP recently
constructed a 4 megawatt facility in the vicinity of the Roxana site for a gas co-generation plant. The
plant was never constructed; therefore, there is ample capacity in the existing system to handle the
additional load from a new BOP facility, regardless of site selection.
Telecommunication and natural gas lines are provided by various utility providers. The providers are
listed in Table 4-1, and the systems adjacent to the Roxana/Meade Farm and Payne Gap sites are
discussed further in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively. In addition, a brief discussion is provided for each
site, which includes estimates of probable connection costs, summaries of the advantages and
disadvantages associated with utility connections to each site, a map of each site, and the locations of the
existing utility infrastructure.
Table 4-1 – Utility Providers
Utility Providers
Site

Water

Wastewater

Roxana/Meade
Farm

LWSD

LWSD

Payne Gap

LWSD

City of Jenkins

Natural Gas
Equitable Gas (EQT)
& Clean Gas
Inc./Hayden Harper
EQT

5

Electric

Telecommunication

AEP

Birch
Communications

AEP

Windstream

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

4.1 Roxana/Meade Farm
The Roxana/Meade Farm property is located southwest of Whitesburg, with existing access from Route
160 east of the intersection with State Highway 588. As described in Summit Engineering’s (2010) Mine
History Report, the property has past mountaintop mining with approximately 30 feet of spoils and has a
level top. There are multiple gas lines and wells throughout the area of interest.
Water Service: Public water would be provided by the LWSD. LWSD is in the process of extending
their water system to the eastern property boundary of the proposed Roxana site. Therefore, to bring
water to the new BOP federal correctional facility, the connection would be limited to a tap on the
existing system near the property boundary and the installation of on-site infrastructure. The new line
being run to the site is an 8-inch pipeline and should be adequate to meet the 80 psi pressure requested for
the BOP facilities. This water system is capable of providing 4 million gallons per day to the region,
which is ample capacity to meet the needs of the new BOP facilities.
Sanitary Sewer Service: LWSD would also be providing sanitary sewer service to the proposed Roxana
site. As with the water service, LWSD is also extending their wastewater collection service, but the
extension has not yet been completed as far as the proposed Roxana site. Currently, the connection point
is approximately 2.75 miles from the proposed site. To connect to the existing system, construction of a
lift station would be required as well as the installation of approximately 2.75 miles of a new collection
system. Although the initial intention of LWSD was to construct the required extension all the way to the
proposed site at no cost to the BOP, LWSD would likely need some funding assistance to complete the
extension of the collection system to the proposed site. This assistance may need to be provided by or be
facilitated by BOP. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that LWSD would require 50%
contribution from BOP for this extension.
Natural Gas: The site consists of multiple gas wells and gas transmission lines. Currently there are 14
Hayden Harper gas wells and 1 EQT gas well within the Roxana/Meade Farm property. Since the BOP
does not own or operate gas wells and does not become involved in mineral rights, all wells within the
property boundary would need to be closed and abandoned, regardless of proximity to proposed facilities.
It would take up to six months to close and abandon these wells. The cost associated with closure and
abandonment of wells can range from $300,000 to $1,000,000. Due to the large production potential of
many of the wells at this site, it is estimated that each closure would cost approximately $850,000. To
abandon all 15 wells, the associated costs would be approximately $12.75 million. There would also be a
connection fee for BOP to connect to the natural gas distribution system. Since the system is in close
proximity to the site, the connection would be limited to the cost of the meter and tap, which is estimated
at $110,000.
Electric Power: As indicated in Section 4.0, AEP has sufficient capacity in the immediate vicinity to
supply power to the proposed BOP facility. With the projected load and revenue from the proposed BOP
facility, AEP has indicated that the connection to the handoff point for the secure perimeter would be
provided at no cost to the BOP. The service would be provided via overhead lines directly to the handoff
point to the proposed BOP facility with no on-site facilities needed. If underground connections (conduit)
are required for service to the proposed BOP facility, the cost of the conduit and running of lines would
be the responsibility of the BOP and would be calculated as part of the site development costs.
Telecommunications: Birch Communications, the telecommunications company serving the area, has
the capability to meet the minimum requirements of the proposed BOP facility. There is a remote

6

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

terminal located in close proximity. However approximately 2 miles of fiber optic cables and 4 miles of
copper cables would be required to bring service to the edge of the property. At this time, it should be
assumed that the costs to install these cables would be the responsibility of BOP. However, during the
design phase, Birch Communications should be contacted to discuss potential cost-sharing options.
Opinion of Probable Costs: The costs to provide adequate utility service to the Roxana/Meade Farm
site are presented in Table 4-2. The estimates are based on the information provided through the utility
provider interviews and based on the engineering reports listed in Section 2. These costs are intended as
an indicator of the general order of magnitude for the activities outlined. These costs should be used for
site cost comparison purposes only. More detailed studies will be required to identify all factors
associated with the actual costs required for extending the utility infrastructure and making the
connections.
Table 4-2 – Roxana/Meade Farm Utility Service Opinion of Probable Cost
Cost
Utility
Water

Sanitary Sewer

Items Included
Costs associated with bringing water to the site will
be associated with installation of on-site
infrastructure - TBD during design

-

Natural Gas
Electrical

Telecommunications
-

Gravity Main Force Main
Manholes
Lift Station(s)
15% Construction Contingency
30% Design/Admin/ROW/Legal/ Permitting
Meter and Tap (incl. connection fees)

1

BOP

Others

$0

$0

$1.4 million

$1.4 million

LWSD to provide
May require some assistance
from BOP (50% assumed)
$110,000

Well Closure: $850,000 x 15

$0

$12,750,000

N/A (assumes no underground conduit required)
Construction of Local Remote Terminal
Installation of fiber optic cables
Installation of copper cable
Local electronics
UTILITY CONNECTION FEES
TOTAL

$0

$0

$165,000

$0

$14,425,000

$1,400,000

$15,825,000

1. Fee responsibility breakdown assumes the utility provider would contribute the portion of the costs listed above. If
conditions change, BOP could potentially be responsible for all or portions of the “Others” fees.

7

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

Advantages:

• Proposed site is relatively level
• Water transmission main has already been brought to the site
• LWSD already has plans underway to extend the wastewater collection system to the site
• Sufficient capacity available to supply electric power to the site at no cost to BOP
Disadvantages:

• Multiple gas wells and lines on the property would need to be closed and abandoned and/or relocated
off the site at the expense (costly) of BOP

• Extension of the wastewater collection system would likely require some funding assistance from
BOP

• There is no telecommunication remote terminal in the vicinity of the proposed Roxana/Meade Farm
site, requiring the construction of a new remote terminal
A map of the existing utilities in the vicinity of the Roxana/Meade Farm site is included in Figure 4-1.

8

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

Figure 4-1 - Existing Utilities at Roxana/Meade Farm Site

9

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

4.2 Payne Gap
The Payne Gap property is located east of Whitesburg along the south side of Highway 119, between
Routes 805 and 23. The property has deep mines and would need to be excavated and filled in order to
create a level surface for construction. This location offers the most direct access to major highways.
The Site Investigation Trip memo (KCI 2010) recommended that the Payne Gap site be removed from
consideration due to “significant concerns with its locations, past mining, and excavation.” However the
BOP feels that the site should remain under consideration because of its accessibility and proximity to
alternative utility suppliers not associated with the Roxana/Meade Farm site.
Water Service: Public water would be provided to the Payne Gap site by the LWSD. As described
previously, LWSD has recently been extending its service area. In addition to extending the service to
Roxana, the service has already been extended along Highway 119, adjacent to the proposed Payne Gap
property. An 8-inch diameter watermain is in the vicinity of the Payne Gap site, and the water pressure
near the connection point is approximately 110 psi. This is more than adequate to meet the 80 psi
pressure requirements of the BOP facilities. Currently, the system in the vicinity of Payne Gap is being
upgraded to ensure the average and peak water demands at the new facilities would be met. As with the
Roxana site, the costs to BOP to provide water to its facilities would be limited to tapping the existing
watermain and installing the necessary on-site water distribution infrastructure. All other water system
upgrades are being provided by LWSD.
Sanitary Sewer Service: Sanitary sewer services would be provided by the City of Jenkins and handled
at the Jenkins WWTP. The nearest connection point to the Payne Gap site is located in close proximity to
the Gateway Industrial Park in Jenkins. The connection point is an 8-inch gravity line, which would
provide sufficient capacity for the estimated flow from the proposed BOP federal correctional facility. In
order to reach the proposed connection point, construction of a lift station would be required. According
to City officials and their representative engineering firm, Nesbitt Engineering, the WWTP has sufficient
capacity to handle the proposed volume from the proposed BOP Facility. The City of Jenkins intends to
provide construction of the sanitary sewer services to the proposed BOP facility at no cost to the BOP.
Natural Gas: There is one gas well on-site, as well as a transmission line running directly through the
property. The transmission line is a 16-inch high pressure main, owned and operated by EQT. The well is
also owned and operated by EQT. The cost to relocate the gas line would be approximately $455 per
linear foot (lf) and there would be a fee of approximately $110,000 for the connection and installation of a
meter. Due to its proximity to the Jefferson National Forest, it would be necessary to reroute the new
transmission line to the north and along Highway 119. This would require approximately 9,000 feet of a
new pressure main. It is anticipated that it would take a minimum of two years to design, permit, and
install this pressure main. In addition to the transmission line relocation, the EQT well would need to be
abandoned and plugged. This would require an additional investment of approximately $850,000 from the
BOP.
Electric Power: As indicated previously, AEP has sufficient capacity in the immediate vicinity to supply
power to the proposed facility. With the projected load and revenue from the BOP facility, AEP has
indicated that the connection to the handoff point for the secure perimeter would be provided at no cost to
the BOP. The service would be provided via overhead lines directly to the handoff point to the secure
facility with no on-site facilities needed. If underground connections (conduit) are required for service to

10

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

the proposed BOP facility, the cost of the conduit and running of lines would be the responsibility of the
BOP and would be considered part of the site development costs.
Telecommunications: Windstream, the telecommunications company serving the area, has the
capability to meet the minimum requirements of the proposed BOP facility. However, the connection to
the existing infrastructure would be the responsibility of BOP. This would include the connection to the
fiber cables at a splice location adjacent to the site and the connection to the copper cables at the Gateway
Industrial Park in Jenkins.
Opinion of Probable Costs: The costs to provide adequate utility service to the Payne Gap site are
presented in Table 4-3. The estimates are based on the information provided through the utility provider
interviews and based on the engineering reports listed in Section 2. These costs are intended as an
indicator of the general order of magnitude for the activities outlined. These costs should be used for site
cost comparison purposes only. More detailed studies will be required to identify all factors associated
with the actual costs required for extending the utility infrastructure and making the connections.
Table 4-3 – Payne Gap Utility Service Opinion of Probable Cost
Cost
Utility
Water

Sanitary Sewer

Items Included
Costs associated with bringing water to the site
will be associated with installation of on-site
infrastructure - TBD during design
- Gravity Main / Force Main
- Manholes
- Lift Station(s)
- 15% Construction Contingency
- 30% Design/Admin/ROW/Legal/ Permitting
Meter and Tap (incl. connection fees)

Natural Gas

Telecommunications

Others

$0

$0

$0

$3.8 million
[City of
Jenkins]

$110,000

16-inch main relocation (9,000 ft @ $455/lf)
Well closure

Electrical

1

BOP

$0

$4,100,000
$850,000

N/A (assumes no underground conduit
required)
Installation of fiber optic cables
Installation of copper cables
UTILITY CONNECTION FEES

$0

$0

$35,000

$0

$5,095,000

$3,800,000

TOTAL

$8,895,000

1. Fee responsibility breakdown assumes the utility provider would contribute the portion of the costs listed above. If
conditions change, BOP could potentially be responsible for all or portions of the “Others” fees.

11

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

Advantages:

•

Water service has already been extended to the site with adequate pressure and modifications to
the water supply are currently underway to meet the estimated BOP water demand

•

The City of Jenkins to provide a connection to the existing sanitary sewer collection system at no
cost to BOP

•

Sufficient capacity available to supply electric power to the site at no cost to BOP

•

Existing telecommunications service is adequate to meet minimum requirements of the proposed
BOP facility, with minimal distance to the connection location

Disadvantages:

•

Excavation and fill required to level property

•

The existing 16-inch natural gas transmission line currently running through the proposed site
would need to be relocated at the expense of BOP. Although the current pipeline is
approximately 4,000 feet, it would require more than twice that distance to reroute the
transmission line around the property. It would require at least two years to design, permit and
construct the new line.

•

There are two EQT gas wells on site that need to be relocated

A map of the existing utilities in the vicinity of the Payne Gap site is included in Figure 4-2.

12

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

Figure 4-2 - Existing Utilities at Payne Gap Site

Copper connection location
Gateway Industrial Park

Fiber splice location

13

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

5.0 ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Part of Executive Order 13514, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic
Performance, requires Federal agencies to increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste,
support sustainable communities, and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally
responsible products and technologies. This reduction of demand from the natural environment and load
back to the natural environment would benefit not only the local community, but also the proposed BOP
federal correctional facility itself by reducing operating costs.
Without a detailed design for the proposed BOP facility, specific alternative energy designs and
sustainability practices consistent with a new facility are difficult to identify at this time. However, some
general practices aimed at the implementation of alternative energy sources and sustainability goals are
discussed in this section, along with limitations associated with the sites. It is unlikely that the feasibility
of specific practices would vary at the different proposed BOP facility sites that have been assessed. The
viability and limitations are primarily associated with the entire region and any space constraints, which
are comparable at both sites.

5.1 Alternative Energy
Use of alternate or renewable sources of energy supports the Executive Order 13514 initiative by utilizing
energy generated from natural resources that can be replenished naturally, without depleting the source.
The two most widely recognized sources of renewable energy are related to solar and wind power.
However, there are other sources of renewable energy such as biomass energy and geothermal systems
that are gaining in popularity.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) is focused on the advancement of our nation’s
energy goals, through the research and development of renewable energy and implementation of energy
efficient systems. Through their research, NREL has performed numerous studies on the efficacy of
different types of renewable energy sources. This section provides a discussion on available renewable
energy sources, as well as the results of NREL’s research on their effectiveness in various parts of the
country, and an assessment of potential use at the proposed BOP facility.
The renewable energy sources discussed in this assessment include:
•
•
•
•

Wind Energy
Photovoltaics/Solar Power
Geothermal Systems
Biomass Energy

14

BOP – Letcher County
5.1.1

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

Wind Energy

Wind energy is harnessed through catching naturally occurring wind with wind turbines and converting
the wind’s energy into electricity. Turbines are typically installed on towers over 100 feet tall in order to
harness higher wind speeds. Wind turbines can be installed individually, or in large groups, depending on
their intended application, which can range from supplementing small portions of a facility’s energy
consumption to providing the primary source of electricity.
In order for wind turbines to harness and convert wind into electricity there needs to be a consistent and
sufficient amount of wind. NREL, in coordination with the Department of Energy’s Wind Program,
published a wind resource map for the state of Kentucky. The wind resource map shows the predicted
mean annual wind speeds at an 80-meter (m) [262.5-ft] height. Areas with annual average wind speeds of
6.5 meters per second and greater at an 80-m height are generally considered to be suitable for wind
development. Figure 5-1 shows the wind resource potential at 80-m heights for Kentucky.
Figure 5-1 - Kentucky Wind Map

Letcher
County

Source: NREL. Kentucky – Annual Average Wind Speed at 80 m. October 2010. http://apps.eere.energy.gov/wind/
windexchange/pdfs/wind.maps/ky_80m.pdf

Letcher County’s average annual wind speed falls below the 5.0 meters per second at the 80-m height.
While the map is a nationally produced map and specific localized data was not gathered, it is generally
accepted that wind power is an unlikely source for alternative energy for this part of the country.

15

BOP – Letcher County
5.1.2

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

Photovoltaics

Solar power is an ever developing trend, with advances in the industry occurring regularly. Photovoltaics
(PV) use semiconductor materials to convert sunlight energy into electricity. There are several types of
collectors available for collecting the sun’s rays in different ways; some collect only direct rays and others
collect both direct rays and reflected light. NREL has published a map of photovoltaic solar resources
across the country. As seen in Figure 5-2, eastern Kentucky lies in a more moderate solar resource
region. This does not necessarily indicate that PV is not a viable option for the new facility. There are a
number of effective PV systems being utilized throughout the state of Kentucky.
Figure 5-2 - Photovoltaic Solar Resource of the U.S.

Source: NREL. Photovoltaic Solar Resource of the United States. September 2012. http://www.nrel.gov/

gis/images/eere_pv/national_photovoltaic_2012-01.jpg
In discussion with a representative of the Kentucky Solar Partnership, solar power in eastern Kentucky
can be a feasible option for supplementing power supply. While the energy generated from the solar
panels would probably not be cost effective for the entire proposed BOP facility, solar panels could easily
be utilized for providing power to the hot water tanks and smaller, energy-hungry appliances that would
be utilized at the proposed BOP facility. Additionally, there are incentives and net metering alternatives
to help reduce the demand from the energy provider. Therefore, it is recommended that PV systems be
further investigated during the design of the new facility as a supplemental source of power.

16

BOP – Letcher County
5.1.3

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

Geothermal Systems

Geothermal systems use the temperature of the earth to heat and cool buildings. By installing a series of
looped pipes deep into the ground, and pumping fluid through the system of pipes, geothermal systems
utilize the relatively constant temperature of the earth to absorb and transfer heat to or from a building.
Typically, the upper 10 feet of the Earth’s surface maintains a temperature of between 50° and 60°F (10°
and 16°C). Geothermal heat pump systems include the system of pipes, a heat pump, and an air duct
system. In the winter, the system pumps the heat into the buildings and in the summer the process is
reversed to remove the heat from the building.
NREL has published a map of known hydrothermal sites and areas most conducive to the installation of
geothermal systems. As seen in Figure 5-3, most geothermal reservoirs of hot water are located in the
western states, as are the most favorable conditions for geothermal systems.
Although Eastern Kentucky is located in a “Least Favorable” zone, it does not preclude the BOP from
implementing a supplemental geothermal system at the proposed correctional facility. These systems are
relatively inexpensive to install and maintain, and are available in a wide range of capacities. This type of
system would not be viable for providing all the heating and cooling needs of the proposed BOP facility,
but such a system could supplement the building’s heating and cooling needs and should be considered
during the design of the facility.
Figure 5-3 - Geothermal Resource of the U.S.

Source: NREL. Geothermal Resource of the United States. Oct. 2009. http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/geothermal_
resource2009-final.jpg

17

BOP – Letcher County
5.1.4

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

Biomass Energy

Biomass energy is the conversion of plant matter into either electricity or liquid or gaseous fuels.
Common sources of biomass are grasses, agricultural crops, and forestry residues. The viability of using
biomass energy as an alternative energy source is typically associated with the proximity of the source
(plant material) to the point of use. NREL has published a map estimating the range of biomass resources
available throughout the country. As seen below in Figure 5-4, the resources available in eastern
Kentucky are minimal.
Figure 5-4 - Biomass Resources Available in the U.S.

Source: NREL. Biomass Resources of the United States. Sep. 2009. http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_biomass_
total_us_new.jpg

Although the map does not indicate that Kentucky has a wide supply of resources available to support a
biomass energy system, a small system to supplement an existing gas supply system could be plausible, if
there is a source within close proximity of the selected site. This option could be considered further
during the design of the proposed BOP facility as a supplemental power source.

18

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

5.2 Sustainability
The concept of sustainability is often considered synonymous with environmental stewardship. Although
green practices are integral to sustainability, the broader principle of sustainability implements the
concept that development that meets the needs of the present should not compromise the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. The concept of the “triple bottom line” (TBL) states that success is
measured not only by financial performance, but by balanced achievements in environmental stewardship,
economic growth and social responsibility. The TBL is achieved when an integrated solution is found
that simultaneously achieves excellence in these components, as opposed to finding tradeoffs among these
areas.
The Environmental Stewardship component of the TBL focuses on practices such as reducing waste,
minimizing carbon and water footprints, preventing pollution and conserving natural resources. However,
to be truly “sustainable” as opposed to just “green,” it is important to also incorporate economic growth
and social responsibility practices. Economic growth concepts focus on practices such as the use of local
contractors and supplies, and creating and strengthening markets such as alternative energy. Social
responsibility concepts focus on practices such as implementing fair labor practices or educating
surrounding communities.
To implement these concepts of sustainability with respect to the construction of a new BOP federal
correctional facility, there are some components that should be focused on during design and
construction. Other practices can be implemented after facility construction and maintained as part of the
facility’s standard operating procedures. During construction, recycled building materials should be
utilized when available. Also, materials and labor should be selected from local vendors and suppliers, as
applicable. As BOP begins to operate the facility, participation in programs promoting waste reduction,
recycling, reuse and composting should be coordinated with the local Public Works and Public Health
organizations. Some sustainability concepts that could be implemented with respect to reducing utility
demands at the new site include:
1. Gray Water Disposal - The Letcher County Environmental Health Department indicated that there is
availability to utilize gray water disposals for a portion of the sanitary sewer load. The gray water beds
would be connected to the washing machine outfall only and could significantly reduce the amount of
flow to the Whitesburg WWTP.
2. Water Reduction – To reduce the water demand at the new facility, the installation of water saving
appliances such as low-flow toilets and high-efficiency clothes washers should be considered. Other
considerations should be given when selecting landscaping alternatives. Xeriscaping refers to the
selection of plants based on their drought tolerance and their ability to thrive without regular maintenance.
Xeriscapes offer a viable alternative for attractive exterior space planning without consuming dwindling
water resources and creating excessive cuttings or plant waste.
3. Green Roof - The inclusion of a “green” roof on top of the facility has the potential to improve the
energy efficiency of the building by providing additional insulation and reducing electricity costs.
Additionally, green roofs protect the roof membrane, which can result in a longer roof lifespan.

19

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

6.0 CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this Enhanced Utility Investigation Report was to assess the viability of providing utilities
to the Roxana and Payne Gap sites for the proposed BOP federal correctional facility. Since many of the
factors associated with the site work necessary to install the utility infrastructure are comparable at both
sites, this comparison focuses on the cost to the BOP for bringing the utility connections to the edge of
the properties. Potable water service has already been (or in the process of being) extended to both sites
and the LWSD and the City of Jenkins are both amenable to providing wastewater collection lines to both
sites. While the intention is to extend wastewater collection service to the sites at no cost to the BOP, it is
likely that the Roxana site would require some cost sharing by BOP. Electric and telecommunications
services are both readily available at both potential sites with some system extension and connection fees
required for telecommunications services.
The one utility with significant impact on the costs associated with site development is natural gas. BOP
does not want any wells or gas lines located on their property and therefore the construction of a new
facility would require abandoning and closing a number of natural gas wells at Roxana or relocating an
existing gas line around the property line at Payne Gap. The costs associated with these factors are
significant and represent the primary utility cost difference associated with site selection. As seen in Table
6-1, the estimated cost to BOP for the connection at the Payne Gap site is significantly lower than the
costs associated with Roxana. However, the relocation of the existing gas line will take approximately
two years compared to the six months required to abandon the wells at Roxana.
Table 6-1 – Utility Connection - Probable Cost Comparison
The two important factors associated
with bringing utilities to the sites
Location
include cost to BOP and the time
Roxana/Meade Farm
associated with constructing the
Payne Gap
infrastructure necessary to make the
connections to the various services. As discussed previously the costs and time associated with bringing
all of the utilities, with the exception of natural gas, to the site are relatively comparable. The exception
would be if BOP is required to provide some cost sharing for the extension of the wastewater collection
system to Roxana. This could require approximately $1.4 million in BOP funding. The primary
difference in cost is the natural gas modifications. As depicted in Table 6.1, the Roxana well closures are
much more costly than the Payne Gap gas line relocation. However, with respect to time requirements,
the relocation would require at least two years, while abandoning the wells would take about six months.
These are the two key factors associated with the utilities that need to be considered during site selection.
Utility Connection Costs (in millions)
BOP
Others
TOTAL
$14.4
$1.4
$15.8
$5.1
$3.8
$8.9

After site selection is finalized, the BOP would have the opportunity to assess their options for
implementing alternate energy systems and sustainability practices. These options and opportunities
would need to be assessed in more detail during the design and operation and maintenance phases of this
project. Although, it is not practical to install an alternative energy system to power the proposed BOP
facility in its entirety, there are numerous systems that could potentially supplement the power provided
to the site, and should be considered. Additionally, sustainability practices should be planned and
coordinated with the local regulators to allow BOP to meet the goals set forth in Executive Order 13514
to increase energy efficiency, conserve water, reduce waste, and promote environmentally responsible
products and technologies.

20

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

APPENDIX 1 – FIELD PHOTOGRAPHS
[Includes pictures at all identified sites prior to eliminating non-viable locations]

21

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Enhanced Utility Investigation Report

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

22

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

Photo #1 – Entrance Drive to Roxana Site

Photo #2 – Roxana Field

23

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

Photo #3 – Roxana Field looking West

Photo #4 – Buildings on Roxana Site

24

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

Photo #5 – Edge of Roxana Plateau

Photo #6 – Overview of Roxana Property

25

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

Photo #7 – Cell Tower on Van Fields Property

Photo #8 – Van Fields plateau

26

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

Photo #9 – Van Fields property looking northeast

Photo #10 – View of lower field at Van Fields

27

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

Photo #11 – Meadow Branch Entrance Drive

Photo #12 – Meadow Branch logging road

28

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

Photo #13 – Results of logging activity at Meadow Branch

Photo #14 – Logging Truck leaving Meadow Branch site

29

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

Photo #15 – Entrance drive to Payne Gap in heavy rain

Photo #16 – Entrance drive to Payne Gap in heavy rain

30

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

APPENDIX 2 – SITE INVESTIGATION UTILITY MEETINGS MEMO

31

BOP – Letcher County

**DRAFT**

Utility Investigation Report

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

32

Memo
To:

File

From: Curtis Lipsey
Cc:

Deborah Henson

Date: May 9, 2011
Re:

BOP – Letcher County Utility investigation

This memo covers the Utility Investigation Meetings held in Whitesburg Kentucky, week of May 2 –
May 5. The utility investigation is one phase of the feasibility study for the four locations identified
during the Reconnaissance Report by Louis Berger in 2008. The four sites identified are:
1. Roxana / Meade farm (ROX)
2. Van / Fields (VF)
3. Payne Gap (PG)
4. Meadow Branch (MB)
Attendees:
The following personnel were present at each of the site visits and utility meetings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Elwood Cornett – Letcher Co. Planning Commission (LCPC)
Jim Jones – LCPC consultant
Bridgettte Lyles – Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
Parke Ransom – BOP
Shaym Sharma – BOP
Deborah Henson – TEC Inc.
Curtis Lipsey – TEC Inc.

Site Visits:
Site visits to the four potential sites were conducted on Tuesday, May 3, 2011. In
addition to the above listed attendees, Jim Ward - County Judge / Executive and Joe DePriest – LCPC.
The field visit to the Payne Gap site was conducted from inside the vehicles due to heavy rains; a short
site walk was conducted at the remainder of the three sites.
Utility Meetings:
The memo is divided into the discussions held for each utility type and provides a
brief overview of the capacities, responsibilities, availability, and preliminary cost assumptions. Each
meeting was attended by Mr. Elwood Cornett and Mr. Jim Jones, whom also provided input during
several of the meetings.

WATER/SEWER:
Meeting Attendees:
Attendee

ROX

VF

PG

MB

Date

W/S

W/S

W

5-4

S

5-5

W/S

5-2

Jim Ward – County Judge /
Executive
Benny Hamilton – KRADD
Jamie Noe – Bell Engineering
Director of Letcher Co Water /
Sewer
Matt Curtis – Nesbitt Engineering
Mayor G.C. Kinder – City of
Jenkins
Todd DePriest – City of Jenkins
Kevin Howard - Summit
Engineering

W/S

W/S

W/S

W/S

Brett Fisher – Summit Engineering
Mayor James Wylie – Whitesburg
•
•

•
•
•

•

•
•
•
•

MB will be served by the Town of Pound VA, whom was unreachable for the meetings.
Judge Ward and the Director of Letcher Co Water and Sewer stated several times that
water and sewer service would be extended to ROX/VF/PG at no cost to the BOP if one
of those sites was selected.
ROX: Existing water lines are located within 5 miles of the site.
VF: Existing water lines are located adjacent to the site.
ROX/VF/PG: Regardless of whether the BOP facility is established, Letcher County is
planning on upgrading and connecting the county’s water system with neighboring
counties and utility providers for consistency of service.
ROX/VF/PG: Bell Engineering will perform an engineering estimate based on the
estimated elevation of the facility to determine location and quantity of booster pumps
to service the facility and elevated storage tanks.
ROX/VF/PG: Bell Engineering to provide pdf maps of proposed county water systems.
ROX/VF/PG: Upgrades of nearby tanks and lines may be required in order to provide
service to the facility during times the elevated storage tank is off line for maintenance.
ROX: Sanitary Sewer is located approximately 9 miles of the site entrance by the
Parkway Inn.
VF: Sanitary sewer is located approximately 2.5 miles from the site entrance by the
Parkway Inn.

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

ROX: The Whitesburg WWTP is located approximately 10 miles from the site
entrance.
VF: The Whitesburg WWTP is located approximately 4 miles from the site entrance.
ROX / VF: The Whitesburg WWTP was recently upgraded, partly in anticipation of the
BOP project, to handle 630,000 gpd and is currently receiving approximately half of the
capacity. The plant was designed to be upgraded with additional modules to nearly
1,000,000 gpd.
ROX / VF: The County is considering providing a dedicated sanitary line and system
for the facility.
Letcher County would prefer to know which site is preferred so they could focus their
effort towards that location.
The county does not have commercial rates, only residential, the connection fees are
minimal and may be waived for the project.
Mayor Wylie reiterated the planning commissions and Judge wards sentiments
regarding provision of service to the selected site.

LETCHER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Attendees:

•
•
•

•
•
•
•

Attendee

ROX

VF

PG

MB

Date

Kevin Nichols – Letcher Co Health

X

X

X

X

5-3

On-site wells for water service are no longer a feasible option in Letcher Co.
On-site sewer disposal (underground leech fields) would be significant in construction
and cost.
Basic calculations performed by Kevin Nichols resulted in the following numbers:
o 210,000 gal tank
o 41,800 lf – 12-ft wide chamber beds
o Based on 1400 bed facility
On-site WWTP would be permitted through the State Division of Water, Letcher Co
representative located in Hazard, KY – Damon White.
On-site WWTP would require discharge to a blue line stream – def.: water running in
stream all year long.
State Division of Water also responsible for spray irrigation option, common in
Kentucky.
Graywater beds for washing machine discharge – 28,340 lf of 2-ft wide by 2-ft deep
beds.
o Cross section of bed – 6-in stone / 4-in pipe / 6-in stone / 4-inch straw / topsoil

NATURAL GAS SERVICE
Attendees:
Attendee

ROX

VF

PG

MB

Date

Don Goble – Troublesome Creek
(TC)

X

5-4

Jed Weinberg – Clean Gas Inc.(CG)

X

5-5

Maurice Royster – EQT
X

X

X

X

5-5

Darryl Smith – EQT
•

Each representative stated that most gas contracts regarding the wells and transmission
lines have a clause that the gas company will relocate the transmission lines one time at
no cost to the property owner. As long as the move is a property development action.
Each representative was checking into the applicable properties for clarification.

•

ROX: In addition to Troublesome Creek and Clean Gas, Kinzer Drilling (KD) also
owns wells within the site. Kinzer has since been contacted and a conference call is
being established.

•

ROX: There are several wells (TC/CG/KD) and underground lines within the proposed
site location. These wells would be located within the property of the future BOP
facility and would either need to be capped and abandoned (at a cost) or agreements
with the BOP made to continue operation. The lines will have to be adjusted to avoid
the BOP facilities.

•

VF: EQT has one gas well shown on the mining report map by Summit Engineering.
EQT is preparing a cost estimate to abandon the well, including compensation for the
well. TC has several wells located just outside of the proposed BOP property limits as
estimated by Summit Engineering.

•

PG: There are no wells located within the proposed property limits of the BOP
facility.

•

PG: EQT has a 16-inch gas main located through the center of the site that will need
to be relocated. EQT is researching cost to relocate the gas main as well as legal
responsibility.

•

MG: EQT has a 4-inch gas line running through the proposed site location that will
need to be relocated. EQT is researching cost to relocate the gas main as well as legal
responsibility.

•

MB: According to the Mining Report map produced by Summit Engineering, There
are three wells by Columbia Natural Resources Inc./Triana Energy (CNR) within the
proposed property limits. CNR has been contacted and we are waiting on return calls.

•

According to Don Goble (TC) a small building for monitoring equipment would be
located on-site near the meter and tap.

•

TC gas wells and transmission lines (4-in) carry 1.23 BTU, zero to low sulfur, and can
be routed directly into facility with no treatment processes.

•

The wells in the ROX area have an estimated 20-25 year life.

•

Approximate cost to abandon wells - $40,000 construction and $60,000-$80,000
compensation for lost revenues.

•

CG: Jed Weinberg will pull comparable costs to the wells in the ROX site for cost
estimating of abandoning the wells. Typical costs could run between $300,000 and
$1,000,000 per well.

ELECTRICITY
Attendees:
Attendee

ROX

VF

PG

Mark Abner – Cumberland Valley Elec.
(CVE)

MB

Date

X

5-4

Mike Laslo – Appalachia Electric (AEP)

X

X

X

5-5

Mike L. – AEP

X

X

X

5-5

•

MB: New transmission lines (69-kV) would need to be run to site.
o

Approx. 2-year construction time

o

Temporary service could be provided today.

o

Would locate a substation on site, 1-acre compound.

o

Sole Source to BOP facility

o

Would provide cable to master meter, up to BOP to provide conduit and
connect facility to master meter.

•

ROX / VF / PG:

•

AEP: Has 12 kV line adjacent to PG site
o

No on-site facilities would be required.

Has 34 kV line adjacent to ROX /VF sites.

•

ROX / VF / PG:

Transmission lines would be run above ground

•

ROX / VF / PG:

2 month estimated bill deposit required.

•

AEP: Willing to give discounts for facility providing own “sustainable” power but
would not buy back power.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Attendees:
Attendee

ROX

VF

PG

MB

Date

Frank Dawahare – SouthEast Telephone
(SE)

X

X

X

X

5-4

Roy Harlow – Intermountain Cable (IC)
Kenny Samons – TVS Cable
•

X

X

X

5-5

X

5-5

SE: Provision of services to all four sites is not an issue. Service cost will depend on
required bandwidth.
o

T-1 lines are easily run, cost depends on whether T-1 is constant / dynamic /
symmetrical / bonded?

o

Depending on bandwidth, upgrades to system (signal boosters) may be required.
Cost for installation shared amongst SE and BOP.

o

Concern with service is reliability of upload speed.

•

Roy Harlow @ intermountain Cable did not show for his meeting but called to
apologize and stated we could work via phone and email.

•

TVS: Can easily service the VF/PG sites but has questionable service to the ROX site.
o

•

PG site can be provided with fiber optic and coax.

TVS – suggested checking with ATT for service to ROX site.

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

APPENDIX E-1
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

E1-2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

DRAFT EIS COMMENT INDEX
Commenter by Category

Page Number

Federal/State/Local Agencies
US EPA Region 4 (Heinz Mueller)
US Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary (Joyce Stanley)
KY Department for Environmental Protection (Ronald Price)

E1-9 to E1-28
E1-29
E1-30 to E1-32

Federal/State/Local Elected Officials
Steven Beshear (Governor of Kentucky)
City of Jenkins

E1-33
E1-34

Organizations and Businesses
Human Rights Defense Center
Bereans for Michael Brown (Quentin Savage)
Mountain Comprehensive Health Corporation (Mike Caudill)
Palmer Engineering (Kevin Damron)
Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation (Jerry Rickett)

E1-35 to E1-55
E1-56
E1-57 to E1-58
E1-59
E1-60

Individuals
Robin Bowen-Watko (Whitesburg City Council)
James Ison
Nancy Fleming
Annette Napier
June Short
Coleen Breeding
Name Withheld
Lori Pigman
Name Withheld
Connie Bates
Kenneth Cornett
Homer Pigman
Name Withheld
Toby Breeding
Alex Williams
Name Withheld
David Clark (Appalachian Real Estate Group)
Marlene Walters
John Honeycutt
Name Withheld
Alecia Pratt
Timothy Lewis
James Fields
Name Withheld
Irene Thomas
Jim McAuley (Letcher County Conservation District)
Sue Grason
Dixie Hall
Name Withheld
Name Withheld
Maggie Watts
Larry Hogg

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-61
E1-62
E1-63
E1-64
E1-65
E1-66
E1-67
E1-68
E1-69
E1-70
E1-71
E1-72
E1-73
E1-74
E1-75
E1-76
E1-77
E1-78
E1-79
E1-80
E1-81
E1-82
E1-83
E1-84
E1-85
E1-86
E1-87
E1-88
E1-89
E1-90
E1-91
E1-92

E1-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Commenter by Category
Rita Pratt (Whitaker Bank, Inc.)
Freddie Bowling (Jenkins Independent Schools, Superintendent)
Name Withheld
Name Withheld
Name Withheld
David Narramore (Letcher Co. Tourism)
Lisa Narramore
Name Withheld (Jenkins Independent Schools)
Name Withheld (Jenkins Independent Schools)
Name Withheld (Jenkins Independent Schools)
Name Withheld (Jenkins Independent Schools)
Bennie McCall (City of Jenkins, City Administrator)
Danny Ingram (Hazard Community and Technical College)
Bonell Watts
Tyler Smith
Name Withheld
Name Withheld
Lovell Sexton
Name Withheld
Name Withheld
Earlene William (Whitesburg City Council)
Dauphus Day
Name Withheld
Tim and Carol Breeding
James Fields (Little Zion Baptist Church, Pastor)
John Reedy
Name Withheld (Letcher County Public Schools)
Bob Banks
Terry Adams (County Magistrate)
Name Withheld (Whitesburg Appalachian Regional Hospital)
Roland Brown
Brenda Day
Gary Pratt
Delena Miller
Michelle Griffin (MCHC)
Holly Caudill
Juanita Collier Spangler (Letcher County Teachers Organization)
Dwight Brockley (Whitesburg ARH)
Nancy Campbell
Name Withheld (Letcher County Board of Education)
Shane Lyle (GRW)
Mitchell Wright (Mitchell Wright Recycling)
John Cain II
Donald Wright
Randi McCall
Paul Fleming
Name Withheld
Melinda Whitaker
Delana Banks
James Kincaid
Lee Caudill (Mountain Comprehensive Health Corporation)
E1-4

Page Number
E1-93
E1-94
E1-95
E1-96
E1-97
E1-98
E1-99
E1-100
E1-101
E1-102
E1-103
E1-104
E1-105
E1-106
E1-107
E1-108
E1-109
E1-110
E1-111
E1-112
E1-113
E1-114
E1-115
E1-116
E1-117
E1-118
E1-119
E1-120
E1-121
E1-122
E1-123
E1-124
E1-125
E1-126
E1-127
E1-128
E1-128
E1-130
E1-131
E1-132
E1-133
E1-134
E1-135
E1-136
E1-137
E1-138
E1-139
E1-140
E1-141
E1-142
E1-143
Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Commenter by Category
Robert Holcomb
Mary Ann Whitaker
Richard Whitaker
Ricky Whitaker
Stacie Collie
Name Withheld (Lewis Electric Security Systems)
Brad Collie
Robin Kincer
Charles Sexton (Charles Sexton Trucking Inc.)
Elizabeth Jones
Name Withheld (Letcher County Chamber of Commerce)
Mary Ruth Wright
Stacy Isaac (Letcher County Schools)
Carol Ison (Cowan Community Action Group, Inc.)
James Perry (FBOP USP Lee)
Doug Adams
Name Withheld
Sherie Caudill (WARH)
Hettie Adams (Letcher County Fiscal Court)
Cristine Bolling (Letcher County Fiscal Court)
Rhonda Perry
Doris Frazier (Letcher County Fiscal Court)
Robert Meade (Kings Creek Volunteer Fire Department, Chief)
Crystal Hart
Name Withheld
Name Withheld
Leigh Blankenbeckley (Whitaker Bank)
Wendy Bentley (Community Trust Bank)
Randy Bailey (Letcher County Soil Conservation Supervisor)
Brenda Blair
Tara Damron
Name Withheld
Name Withheld (Kentucky Works Program/Big Sandy Area Development District)
Name Withheld
Charles Frazier (Tom Short Ford, General Manager)
Abbetina Genty
Name Withheld
Name Withheld
James Craft (City of Whitesburg, Mayor)
Richard Lewis
Melanie Watts
Name Withheld
Name Withheld (Letcher County Board of Education)
Linda Watts
Margaret Lewis
Cathy Wright-Rose
Name Withheld (Jenkins Independent School Board)
Name Withheld
Alita Vogel (Letcher County Public Library)
Name Withheld (Letcher County Schools)
Regina Brown (Letcher County Schools)
Jolinda Wright
Appendix E-1
March 2016

Page Number
E1-144
E1-145
E1-146
E1-147
E1-148
E1-149
E1-150
E1-151 to E1-152
E1-153 to E1-154
E1-155 to E1-156
E1-157 to E1-158
E1-159 to E1-160
E1-161 to E1-162
E1-163 to E1-164
E1-165 to E1-166
E1-167 to E1-168
E1-169 to E1-170
E1-171 to E1-172
E1-173 to E1-174
E1-175 to E1-176
E1-177 to E1-178
E1-179 to E1-180
E1-181 to E1-182
E1-183 to E1-184
E1-185 to E1-186
E1-187 to E1-188
E1-189 to E1-190
E1-191 to E1-192
E1-193 to E1-194
E1-195 to E1-196
E1-197 to E1-198
E1-199 to E1-200
E1-201 to E1-202
E1-203 to E1-204
E1-205 to E1-206
E1-207 to E1-208
E1-209 to E1-210
E1-211 to E1-212
E1-213 to E1-214
E1-215 to E1-216
E1-217 to E1-218
E1-219 to E1-220
E1-221 to E1-222
E1-223 to E1-224
E1-225 to E1-226
E1-227 to E1-228
E1-229 to E1-230
E1-231 to E1-232
E1-233 to E1-234
E1-235 to E1-236
E1-237 to E1-238
E1-239 to E1-240
E1-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Commenter by Category
Stephanie Cassell (Jenkins Middle High School)
Name Withheld (Whitaker Bank)
Name Withheld (Letcher County Schools)
Kyle Smith (Knott County Water and Sewer)
Richard Smith
Marjorie Sparks
Randy Campbell
Sherwood and Rhoda Ison
Larry Whitaker
Name Withheld
Howard Stanfill (Kentucky Farm Bureau)
Melissa McFall (Napa Auto Works/Childers Tire and Supply)
Cathy Ingran
Shirley Breeding
Kate Walters
Ralph Cornett
Teresa Fleming (MCHC)
Name Withheld
Sandy Creech
Name Withheld
Margaret Hammonds (Whitaker Bank Inc.)
Robert Hares
Kennith Watts
Amelia Kirby
Addie Raleigh
Elizabeth Sanders
James Craft
Jimmie Farley
Lisa Narramore
Richard and Pat Yinger
James Fields
Carol and Louis Brown
Ann Hall
Charles Holbrook, Jr.
Peggy Greer
Maura Ubinger
Noam Brown
Scott Parkin
T. Reed Miller
Tanya Nguyen
Willie Dodson
Benjamin Reynoso
George Ball
Libby Gho
Toby Fraser
Panagioti Tsolkas

Page Number
E1-241 to E1-242
E1-243 to E1-244
E1-245 to E1-246
E1-247 to E1-248
E1-249 to E1-250
E1-251 to E1-252
E1-253
E1-254
E1-255
E1-256
E1-257
E1-258
E1-259
E1-260
E1-261
E1-262
E1-263
E1-264
E1-265
E1-266
E1-267
E1-268
E1-269
E1-270
E1-270
E1-271 to E1-272
E1-273
E1-274
E1-275
E1-276
E1-277
E1-278 to E1-279
E1-280
E1-281 to E1-282
E1-283 to E1-284
E1-285
E1-286
E1-287
E1-288
E1-289
E1-290
E1-291
E1-292
E1-293
E1-294
E1-295 to E1-296

Form Letters
Form Letter 1
Form Letter 2
Form Letter 3
Form Letter 4
E1-6

E1-297
E1-298
E1-299
E1-300
Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Commenter by Category

Page Number

Form Letter 5
Form Letter 6
Form Letter 7
Form Letter 8

E1-301
E1-302
E1-303
E1-304

Citizen Petitions – received 1,251 signatures

E1-557 to E1-594

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-7

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

E1-8

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-9

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-10

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-11

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-12

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-13

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-14

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-15

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-16

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-17

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-18

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-19

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-20

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-21

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-22

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1.

The Preferred Alternative has been identified in Section

1. The2.9Preferred
Alternative
is identified in Section 2.6 of
of this FINAL
EIS.
Revised
2.theThe
BureauFinal
thanksEIS.
you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

2. 3.Time
schedules for the proposed project have not yet
The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
been
Detailed project schedules will only be
hasestablished.
noted your comment.
a Record
of Decision
been
4.determined
The Bureauif/when
thanks you
for reviewing
the Draft has
EIS and
has noted
your comment. funds required for the project
issued
and appropriated
5.have
Thebeen
Bureau
thanks
you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
made
available.
has noted your comment.

Bureauthanks
thanks you
the Draft
EIS and
3. 6.TheThe
Bureau
youfor
forreviewing
reviewing
the Draft
EIS and
notedyour
your comment.
comment.
hashas
noted
7.

The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and

1

4. Thehas
Bureau
thanks
you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
noted your
comment.
8.hasThe
Bureau
thanks
you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
noted
your
comment.

2

5. 9.TheThe
Bureau
youfor
forreviewing
reviewing
the Draft
EIS and
Bureauthanks
thanks you
the Draft
EIS and
notedyour
your comment.
comment.
hashas
noted

has noted your comment.

3
4
5
6

6. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
7. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
8. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

7
8

9

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-23

10. Th
2.
11. Th
ha
12. Th
ha
13. Th
ha
14. Th
ha
15. Th
ha
16. Th
ha
17. Th
ha
18. Th
ha

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

9. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

9

10

E1-24

10. See response No. 1 above and Table ES-1 of the
Executive Summary. The Preferred Alternative has been
identified in the Revised Final EIS as the Roxana site. The
Bureau has conducted coordination with the Kentucky
Transportation Cabinet, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to outline
minimization measures and develop appropriate
mitigation for impacts that cannot be avoided. Chapters
4 and 5 discuss anticipated impacts, agency
coordination, and proposed mitigation measures.
Appendix A contains agency correspondence.

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-25

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-26

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-27

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-28

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-29

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-30

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

2

3

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-31

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

4. These BMPs have been added to the Air Quality
sections of the Revised Final EIS.

4

E1-32

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-33

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

3

E1-34

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-35

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment. In accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act, the Bureau has
evaluated a reasonable number of alternatives based
on the project needs. The National Environmental
Policy Act and the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) do not specify the extent of the alternatives to be
evaluated, just that a reasonable number of
alternatives are evaluated. CEQ guidance specifically
states "What constitutes a reasonable number of
alternatives depends on the nature of the proposal and
the facts in each case.” Chapter 2 discusses the
alternatives development process for the project.

1

E1-36

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau is responsible for housing inmates sentenced
by the federal court system. The Bureau is not the
agency responsible for developing sentencing guidelines
or alternatives to current sentencing guidelines.

2

3. Placement of an inmate depends on numerous factors
as outlined in the Bureau’s Program Statement 5100.08.
Attempting to locate the inmate within the region of
origin provides greater opportunity for visitation with
family, which aids in the rehabilitation process.

3

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-37

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

4. Public involvement, from the scoping phase and
throughout the EIS process for the proposed action, has
been extensive, ongoing, and in full compliance with
NEPA requirements. Section 1.7.4 of the Revised Final
EIS details public involvement activities that occurred for
the project.
3

4

E1-38

The public scoping process was used to assist the Bureau
in identifying the relevant environmental issues to be
included and considered in the Draft EIS. Unlike
comments on the Draft EIS, scoping comments are not
published or responded to, but rather are summarized
and the summary included in the EIS (in Section 1.7.4).
A substantial number of public comments on the Draft
EIS were received (more than 1,160, not including
petitions) reflective of a robust public involvement
program. Appendix E-1 contains these public comments
and the Bureau’s responses to these comments.
Comments submitted on the Final EIS, although
withdrawn and replaced by this Revised Final EIS, are
part of the Administrative Record for the proposed
action and are included in Appendix E-2.

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

4

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-39

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

5. No impacts to the health and safety of persons
(inmates, staff, visitors, or contractors) are anticipated
as a result of the project or past mining activities on the
proposed site. Additional investigation was undertaken
to ensure there would be no environmental impacts on
site that would have bearing on human health. See
response to comment #6.

4

5

E1-40

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

6. Regarding concerns about health hazards from the former

6

mining sites, the Roxana site, the preferred alternative, was
investigated to determine whether the excavation and onsite redistribution of the overburden from the former
surface coal mine would be likely to induce material
environmental impacts on the site and/or to streams
receiving drainage from the site that could have significant
bearing on human health due to the geochemical nature of
the material. The investigation tested existing water
discharges around the perimeter of the reclaimed mine site.
The results of these tests indicate the drainage is essentially
devoid of heavy metal or trace metal components. The
investigation also included subsurface sampling of the
overburden material. The analysis of 45 samples from six
deep borings within the area where construction is proposed
found that the rubble material exhibits very low potential to
generate acidic drainage, as it is well-weathered material
very low in sulfur content and of low reactivity
geochemically. Based on the water analyses and the results
of the subsurface material tests, there are no areas of
overburden that require special handling, and there is very
low potential for mobilization of metals of any concern to
either human health or aquatic environments on the Roxana
site. Appendix H contains the investigation report, and
Section 5.10 of the EIS includes a detailed discussion of the
results of the investigation.
Regarding concerns about prisons located near other coalrelated processing facilities, the Roxana site is located over a
mile away from a coal processing site and thus should not be
compared to the conditions cited in Dustin McDaniels report,
as referenced in the comment letter, regarding Fayette
where the prison is immediately adjacent to the coal
processing and combustion waste disposal facility. No
combustion or disposal of coal ash or other combustion

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-41

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

byproducts occurs at the coal processing site, and the washed
ore is trucked off-site to generation plants located elsewhere.
Refer to Section 5.12.1.2 of the EIS for further information.

6

The site investigation conducted in 2010 by KCI, referred to in
the comment, was a desktop and site walkover study. No
detailed studies were conducted. Based on the 2010 memo,
the Bureau decided to study how previous mining activity may
have impacted the site and if the site could be developed. In
2012, a feasibility study was conducted along with
geotechnical studies to determine if the site could be
developed. Based on these studies, it was determined that
with significant excavation and fill activities, the site could be
developed; therefore, it was carried into the EIS for further
evaluation. Excavation and grading studies determined that
significant earthwork would have to occur to make the site
developable.
Studies, including geotechnical, were conducted to determine
the extent of excavation and grading activities to prepare the
site for development. The recommendation that the Payne
Gap site be removed from further consideration was based on
the need for excessive excavation that would incur additional
costs and was not related to health-related concerns from
past mining.

E1-42

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

7. Sections 4.8.1.1 and 4.8.2.1, and Sections 5.8.1.1 and
5.8.2.1 of the Revised Final EIS address the quality and
availability of potable water at the Payne Gap and
Roxana sites, respectively.
6

Regarding potential impacts on water quality associated
with the gas wells on the Roxana site, as stated in
Section 5.10.2.3, testing of water discharge samples
from the site reveal that there is no significant or
detectable impact from deep saline waters that may
have been encountered with installation of the gas wells
at the site. Therefore, their closure would ensure that no
such impact is likely to occur in the future.

7

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-43

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

8. Facilities intended for human occupancy would be
designed to prevent occupant exposures to radon
above the USEPA action level of 4 pCi/L. Information
about radon and potential for occupant exposure has
been added to Sections 4.12 and 5.12 in the Revised
Final EIS.

7

8

9

9. Environmental Justice guidance (Executive Order
12898) directs federal agencies to address
“disproportionately high and adverse” human health or
environmental effects of its actions upon minority and
low income populations. Inmates to be incarcerated at
the proposed facility would include a population of
mixed backgrounds (differing in many respects,
including ethnicity, race, income, age, and education).
The Bureau is not aware of any provision in guidance to
federal agencies for implementation of EO 12898 that
identifies inmates, or such a diverse population, as
either a low income or minority population for
purposes of the Executive Order. However, even
assuming inmates to be housed at the proposed USP
and FPC were such a population, the Bureau has
determined that neither disproportionately high nor
adverse human health or environmental impacts to the
inmates would result from the proposed facility.
A UNICOR operation at this facility is no longer included
as part of the proposed action. If UNICOR does operate
at this location in the future, all applicable
environmental laws and regulations will be adhered to
and enforced.

E1-44

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

9

10. The proposed facilities would be developed and
operated in accordance with all applicable federal and
state laws and regulations, including health and safety as
well as environmental requirements. No impacts to the
health and safety of persons (inmates, staff, visitors, or
contractors) are anticipated as a result of the proposed
project. Chapters 4 and 5 of the Revised Final EIS discuss
the affected environment, environmental consequences,
and mitigation if there are impacts. Additionally,
Appendix A of the Revised Final EIS includes agency
correspondence that describes coordination regarding
necessary mitigation.

10

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-45

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

11. Clarification of potential impacts to wastewater under
Alternative 1 – Payne Gap has been included in Section
4.8.2.2. Section 8.1.5, Potential Cumulative Impacts, has
been updated to address the potential cumulative
impacts to wastewater treatment capacity.
10

11

E1-46

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

11

12

13

12. Sections 4.8 and 5.8 in the Revised Final EIS have been
revised to clarify the availability of potable water under
Alternatives 1 and 2. Sections 4.8 and 5.8 of the Revised
Final EIS also address the quality of the potable water
supply.
13. The Draft EIS stated in Sections 4.11 and 5.11 that a
Phase I bat habitat survey had been conducted and was
currently under review by USFWS. The Draft EIS further
stated that there is summer habitat at both alternative
sites and winter habitat at the Payne Gap site. The Draft
EIS also stated that coordination would be ongoing with
USFWS to determine appropriate mitigation. The Bureau
met with USFWS on May 20, 2015 to discuss mitigation.
USFWS issued comments on the Final EIS in accordance
with the Endangered Species Act and stated that the
Bureau has sufficiently identified the potential impacts
to threatened and endangered species as a result of the
proposed project. The Bureau proposes to mitigate for
take of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats
through a Conservation Memorandum of Agreement
following the guidance provided in the USFWS’s April
2015 Conservation Strategy for Forest Dwelling Bats in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Sections 4.11 and 5.11 have been updated to reflect the
additional coordination and updated mitigation
requirements based on this coordination. Refer to
Appendix A and Appendix E-2 for correspondence from
USFWS.

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-47

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

14. Appropriate coordination with state and federal
agencies occurred to determine if other threatened and
endangered species had the potential to be affected.
Agency coordination efforts are included in Appendix A
and Appendix E-2 of the Revised Final EIS.
14

15. Please see response to comment 13.

15

E1-48

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

16. Appendix A of the Revised Final EIS includes agency
correspondence that describes coordination regarding
necessary mitigation.

15

16

The Draft EIS stated in Sections 4.11 and 5.11 that a
Phase I bat habitat survey had been conducted and was
currently under review by USFWS. The Draft EIS further
stated that there is summer habitat at both alternative
sites and winter habitat at the Payne Gap site. The Draft
EIS also stated that coordination would be ongoing with
USFWS to determine appropriate mitigation. The Bureau
met with USFWS on May 20, 2015 to discuss mitigation.
USFWS issued comments on the Final EIS in accordance
with the Endangered Species Act and stated that the
Bureau has sufficiently identified the potential impacts
to threatened and endangered species as a result of the
proposed project. The Bureau proposes to mitigate for
take of Indiana bats and northern long-eared bats
through a Conservation Memorandum of Agreement
following the guidance provided in the USFWS’s April
2015 Conservation Strategy for Forest Dwelling Bats in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Sections 4.11 and 5.11 have been updated to reflect the
additional agency coordination and updated mitigation
requirements based on this coordination. Refer to
Appendix A and Appendix E-2 for correspondence from
USFWS.

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-49

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

16

17. Records of communication with law enforcement and
emergency service providers have been included in
Appendix A. The Bureau has coordinated appropriately
with these providers to determine what affect the
proposed action may have on their ability to provide
service.
The majority of inmate incidents that would occur at the
proposed facility would be handled internally through
the Bureau of Prisons’ disciplinary proceedings; federal
criminal violations that may occur cannot be tried in
state or local courts. Nearly all civil litigation involving
federal inmates would also take place in federal, not
state or local, courts. Therefore, no significant impact to
state or local law enforcement or state or local court
resources would be expected as a result of implementing
the proposed action at either the Payne Gap site or the
Roxana site.

17

E1-50

The Bureau’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is a
benefit to all full-time employees. This program provides
brief counseling, consultation, and referral services to all
staff and their immediate family members. These free
services can be used to address any variety of workrelated or personal concerns. Each facility also has its
own Crisis Support Team (CST), which operates at the
discretion of the warden, to attend to the needs of staff
and their family during a crisis. Crises can include an
individual staff member experiencing a family
emergency (e.g., sick child, medical emergency, etc.) to
opening and operating a Family Support Center for all
staff and their families following a natural disaster. Both
programs operate with the support of other regional
Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

institutions and resources, as well as the Bureau's
Central Office. Together, EAP and CST aim to address
most of the mental health needs of its staff, and can be
accessed 24/7.
17

18

19

Appendix E-1
March 2016

18. A UNICOR operation at this facility is no longer included
as part of the proposed action. The Air Emissions
Calculations in Appendix D and the Enhanced Utility
Report in Appendix E were prepared prior to the removal
of UNICOR operation from the proposed action. If
UNICOR does operate at this location in the future, all
applicable environmental laws and regulations will be
adhered to and enforced.
19. The Revised Final EIS addresses environmental justice in
accordance with EO 12898 and NEPA. No significant
adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the
proposed action as described in Sections 4.3 and 5.3 of
the Revised Final EIS. There are no adverse
environmental impacts that would have
disproportionately high or adverse environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations or Indian tribes.

E1-51

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

20. This is exclusively under legislative and/or election official’s
oversight and beyond the Bureau's jurisdiction or control.
With regard to potential dilution or other voting impacts, the
incarceration of non-voting inmates at the proposed facility,
regardless of where they come from, is believed to be a less
than significant impact.
20

21

21. As indicated above in the response to comment 18, a UNICOR
operation is no longer included in the proposed action.
Cumulative impacts are to be evaluated if impacts of a
proposed action on a resource, when considered in
combination with impacts from other past, present, or
reasonably foreseeable future projects or actions, may result
in the proposed action contributing to a cumulative impact on
that resource. If the agency’s proposed action does not
impact a resource it will not contribute to a cumulative
impact. If an agency’s proposed action does impact a resource
then a cumulative impact assessment is done, if there are
other actions affecting the resource. Potential cumulative
impacts associated with the Bureau’s proposed action are
discussed in Chapter 8.

22. NEPA requires that the EIS evaluate the potential impacts
22

23

associated with the proposed action, including socioeconomic
and other environmental impacts; the Bureau has done so for
this proposed project. In accordance with NEPA, a separate
EIS process that appropriately evaluated potential
socioeconomic and other environmental impacts was
conducted individually for each of the Bureau facilities
identified in the comment.

23. As stated in the Revised Final EIS, Section 1.5, Purpose and
Need, the purpose of the project is to increase capacity and
reduce overcrowding at high-security facilities within the MidAtlantic Region. The No Action Alternative does not meet the
purpose and need of the proposed action.
E1-52

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

24. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
25. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
24

26. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

25

26

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-53

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-54

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-55

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-56

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-57

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

E1-58

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The preferred alternative for the proposed action has
been identified in Section 2.6, Preferred Alternative, of
the Revised Final EIS. At this time there is no information
regarding construction schedule. Information about
access to the proposed facility for each alternative
location is available in Sections 4.5 and 5.5.

1

2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-59

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-60

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-61

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-62

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-63

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-64

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-65

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-66

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-67

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-68

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-69

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-70

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-71

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-72

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-73

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS.

E1-74

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-75

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-76

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-77

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS.

E1-78

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-79

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-80

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-81

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-82

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-83

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-84

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-85

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

E1-86

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-87

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-88

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-89

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-90

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-91

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-92

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-93

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

E1-94

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-95

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-96

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-97

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-98

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-99

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-100

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-101

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

E1-102

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-103

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2
3

E1-104

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-105

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-106

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-107

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-108

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-109

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

E1-110

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-111

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-112

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-113

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

E1-114

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-115

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-116

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-117

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-118

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-119

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-120

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-121

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-122

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for your participation.

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-123

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-124

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-125

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

E1-126

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for your participation.

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-127

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-128

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-129

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-130

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-131

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-132

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-133

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

E1-134

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-135

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-136

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-137

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-138

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-139

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-140

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-141

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-142

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-143

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-144

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for your participation.

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-145

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for your participation.

E1-146

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-147

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for your participation.

E1-148

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-149

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for your participation.

E1-150

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-151

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-152

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-153

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-154

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-155

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-156

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-157

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-158

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau appreciates your participation and would
meet with families to discuss the potential acquisition
of properties.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-159

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau appreciates your participation and would
meet with families to discuss the potential acquisition of
properties.
3. The Bureau would not impact cemeteries.
2

4. Property that is acquired by the Bureau for the facility
becomes the Bureau’s property and for safety and
security reasons the public cannot have access to the
property.

3

5. Figure 2-3 depicts the distance between the proposed
facility and nearby residences.

4
5
6

6. The Bureau would not impact or relocate cemeteries.
7. The Bureau appreciates your participation and would
meet with families to discuss the potential acquisition of
properties.

7

E1-160

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-161

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-162

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and

has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-163

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
2

has noted your comment.

3

E1-164

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-165

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

2

E1-166

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-167

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

2

E1-168

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-169

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
4. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

3

4

E1-170

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-171

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-172

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and

has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-173

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

E1-174

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-175

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-176

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-177

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-178

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-179

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-180

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-181

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

3

E1-182

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. Owners of land acquired by the Federal Government are
entitled under federal law to “just compensation,” which
generally means the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the
property. The FMV of each property acquired would be
determined by an appraisal conducted pursuant to
federal law and in accordance with the Uniform
Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions (2000
edition). To the extent a property to be acquired
contains commercial timber, the appraisal/FMV
determination would typically include the timber value
as a component of the entire property value. Should
timber be removed/harvested by a landowner prior to
acquisition, the resulting appraised value/FMV would
generally be reduced to reflect the recent timber
removal/harvest. Surrounding landowners, as well as
owners of land acquired by the Federal Government, are
generally not entitled to consequential damages or
damages for any contingent or potential future
damages.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-183

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

3

E1-184

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-185

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-186

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and

has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-187

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-188

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-189

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-190

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-191

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

E1-192

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-193

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-194

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-195

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-196

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. Traffic impact studies were conducted for both sites.
Section 5.5 in the Revised Final EIS discusses traffic and
roadway conditions, potential impacts, and proposed
mitigation for Alternative 2 – Roxana.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-197

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

2

3

E1-198

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-199

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-200

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-201

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-202

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-203

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3

E1-204

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-205

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

4. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

4

E1-206

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-207

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-208

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-209

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-210

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-211

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-212

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-213

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-214

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-215

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-216

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-217

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-218

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. Sections 4.8 and 5.8 of the Revised Final EIS discusses
infrastructure and utilities, including solid waste. As
described in the Revised Final EIS, the county would
pick up solid waste from the facility. The Bureau would
pay the rate assessed by the county for disposal of their
solid waste.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-219

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

3

E1-220

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-221

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-222

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-223

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

E1-224

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-225

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

E1-226

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau would not impact cemeteries.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-227

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

3

4. The Bureau thanks you for your participation and has
noted your comment.
5. The career opportunities brochure has been forwarded
to your address, as there is no address provided for your
mother.

4

5

E1-228

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-229

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

4. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
5. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

6. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
4
5
6

7. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
8. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

7

8

E1-230

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-231

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1

4. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

2

3

4

E1-232

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-233

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-234

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-235

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-236

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-237

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-238

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-239

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-240

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-241

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-242

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-243

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-244

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and

has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-245

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-246

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and

has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-247

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

4. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

4

5. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and

has noted your comment.
5

E1-248

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-249

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-250

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-251

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

2

E1-252

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-253

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-254

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-255

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-256

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-257

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-258

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-259

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-260

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-261

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-262

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-263

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-264

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-265

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-266

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-267

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment. Owners of land acquired by
the Federal Government are entitled under federal law
to “just compensation,” which generally means the Fair
Market Value (FMV) of the property. The FMV of each
property acquired would be determined by an appraisal
conducted pursuant to federal law and in accordance
with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land
Acquisitions (2000 edition). To the extent a property to
be acquired contains commercial timber, the
appraisal/FMV determination would typically include
the timber value as a component of the entire property
value. Should timber be removed/harvested by a
landowner prior to acquisition, the resulting appraised
value/FMV would generally be reduced to reflect the
recent timber removal/harvest. Surrounding
landowners, as well as owners of land acquired by the
Federal Government, are generally not entitled to
consequential damages or damages for any contingent
or potential future damages.

1

E1-268

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-269

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

2

E1-270

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment. Section 1.7.4 of the Revised
Final EIS has been revised to reflect that many
comments were received, and the majority of
comments were in support of the project. All
comments, positive and negative, that have been
submitted have been noted and will be considered by
the Bureau in connection with issuance of a Record of
Decision regarding the proposed action.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-271

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

2. The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is a benefit to all full-time

2

3

4

employees. This program provides brief counseling, consultation,
and referral services to all staff and their immediate family
members. These free services can be used to address any variety of
work-related or personal concerns. Each facility also has its own
Crisis Support Team (CST), which operates at the discretion of the
warden, to attend to the needs of staff and their family during a
crisis. Crises can include anything as small as an individual staff
member experiencing a family emergency (e.g., sick child, medical
emergency, etc.) to something as large as opening and operating a
Family Support Center for all staff and their families following a
natural disaster. Both programs operate with the support of other
regional institutions and resources, as well as the Bureau of Prison’s
Central Office. Together, EAP and CST aim to address most of the
mental health needs of its staff, and can be accessed 24/7.

3. The Bureau is not the agency responsible for sentencing guidelines
5

nor does it participate in the sentencing of convicted felons. The
Bureau's responsibility is for housing those inmates sentenced
within the federal court system.

4. No health and safety impacts are anticipated.
The Bureau provides healthcare services within their institutions.
Under the proposed action, the Bureau would employ healthcare
staff to meet the medical, dental, and mental healthcare needs of
inmates. In the event of a medical emergency that cannot be
accommodated at the facility, coordination with local health care
officials indicates that emergency treatment of an inmate can be
accommodated by the local hospitals with no impact to the local
healthcare system, as described in Sections 4.4.2.3 and 5.4.2.3 of
the Revised Final EIS.

5. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and has noted
your comment.

E1-272

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1
2

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-273

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-274

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-275

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-276

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1
2

3

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-277

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau is not the agency responsible for sentencing
guidelines nor does it participate in the sentencing of
convicted felons. The Bureau's responsibility is for
housing those inmates sentenced within the federal
court system.

1

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2

4. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
5. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

4

5

E1-278

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-279

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

E1-280

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

2. The stream impacts in Sections 4.10 and 5.10 of the
Revised Final EIS are correct. The summary table in the
Executive Summary reflected inaccurate numbers. These
numbers have been revised to correspond to the
numbers in Sections 4.10 and 5.10. Engineering design
for the proposed facility will require the development of
a stormwater control plan to manage stormwater onsite and minimize potential impacts stormwater runoff
may have on nearby streams. Additionally, measures
would be taken to keep as much of the forested area
associated with the sites and the Bureau would evaluate
re-vegetation of areas post-construction to reduce
runoff, erosion, and sedimentation.

2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-281

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

3. The site described in your comment was not offered to
the Bureau by the property owner.
3

4. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

4

E1-282

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
The Bureau has identified the Preferred Alternative in
Section 2.6 of the Revised Final EIS.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-283

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1

E1-284

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and

has noted your comment.

1

2

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-285

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

3

E1-286

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2
3

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-287

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1
2
3

E1-288

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1
2
3

Appendix E-1
March 2016

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

E1-289

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1
2

2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

E1-290

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2
3

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-291

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2
3

E1-292

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
1
2

3. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

3

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-293

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
2. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1
2

E1-294

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-295

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1.

The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS. Please
refer to pages E-33 through E-53 for the responses to the
attachment comment letter.

1

E1-296

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and has
noted your comment.

Form Letter 1

Following are all the signed Form Letter 1s that were
received.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-297

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Form Letter 2

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
Following are all the signed Form Letter 2s that were
received.

1

E1-298

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Form Letter 3

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
Following are all the signed Form Letter 3s that were
received.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-299

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Form Letter 4

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
Following are all the signed Form Letter 4s that were
received.

1

E1-300

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Form Letter 5

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
Following are all the signed Form Letter 5s that were
received.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-301

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Form Letter 6

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
Following are all the signed Form Letter 6s that were
received.

1

E1-302

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Form Letter 7

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
Following are all the signed Form Letter 7s that were
received.

1

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-303

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Form Letter 8

1. The Bureau thanks you for reviewing the Draft EIS and
has noted your comment.
Following are all the signed Form Letter 8s that were
received.

1

E1-304

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-305

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-306

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-307

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-308

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-309

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-310

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-311

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-312

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-313

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-314

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-315

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-316

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-317

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-318

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-319

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-320

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-321

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-322

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-323

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-324

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-325

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-326

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-327

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-328

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-329

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-330

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-331

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-332

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-333

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-334

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-335

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-336

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-337

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-338

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-339

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-340

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-341

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-342

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-343

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-344

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-345

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-346

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-347

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-348

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-349

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-350

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-351

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-352

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-353

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-354

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-355

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-356

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-357

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-358

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-359

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-360

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-361

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-362

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-363

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-364

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-365

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-366

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-367

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-368

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-369

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-370

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-371

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-372

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-373

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-374

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-375

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-376

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-377

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-378

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-379

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-380

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-381

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-382

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-383

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-384

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-385

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-386

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-387

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-388

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-389

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-390

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-391

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-392

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-393

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-394

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-395

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-396

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-397

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-398

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-399

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-400

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-401

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-402

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-403

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-404

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-405

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-406

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-407

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-408

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-409

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-410

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-411

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-412

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-413

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-414

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-415

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-416

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-417

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-418

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-419

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-420

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-421

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-422

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-423

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-424

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-425

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-426

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-427

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-428

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-429

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-430

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-431

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-432

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-433

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-434

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-435

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-436

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-437

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-438

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-439

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-440

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-441

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-442

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-443

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-444

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-445

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-446

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-447

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-448

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-449

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-450

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-451

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-452

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-453

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-454

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-455

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-456

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-457

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-458

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-459

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-460

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-461

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-462

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-463

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-464

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-465

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-466

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-467

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-468

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-469

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-470

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-471

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-472

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-473

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-474

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-475

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-476

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-477

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-478

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-479

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-480

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-481

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-482

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-483

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-484

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-485

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-486

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-487

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-488

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-489

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-490

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-491

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-492

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-493

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-494

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-495

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-496

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-497

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-498

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-499

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-500

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-501

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-502

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-503

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-504

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-505

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-506

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-507

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-508

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-509

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-510

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-511

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-512

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-513

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-514

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-515

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-516

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-517

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-518

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-519

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-520

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-521

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-522

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-523

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-524

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-525

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-526

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-527

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-528

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-529

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-530

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-531

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-532

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-533

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-534

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-535

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-536

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-537

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-538

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-539

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-540

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-541

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-542

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-543

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-544

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-545

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-546

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-547

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-548

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-549

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-550

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-551

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-552

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-553

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-554

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-555

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-556

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-557

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-558

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-559

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-560

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-561

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-562

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-563

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-564

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-565

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-566

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-567

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-568

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-569

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-570

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-571

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-572

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-573

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-574

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-575

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-576

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-577

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-578

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-579

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-580

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-581

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-582

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-583

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-584

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-585

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-586

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-587

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-588

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-589

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-590

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-591

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E1-592

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-1
March 2016

E1-593

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

E1-594

Appendix E-1
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

APPENDIX E-2
COMMENTS ON FINAL EIS

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

E2-2

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

FINAL EIS COMMENT INDEX
Commenter by Category

Page Number

Federal/State/Local Agencies
U.S. EPA Region 4 (Christopher A. Militscher)
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (Virgil Lee Andrews, Jr.)
Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection (Ronald T. Price)

E2-5
E2-6
E2-7 to E2-8

Organizations and Businesses
Abolitionist Law Center (Dustin McDaniel)
Human Rights Defense Center (Paul Wright)
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (Janet Keating)
Pine Mountain Grill

E2-9 to E2-22
E2-23 to E2-38
E2-39 to E2-40
E2-40

Individuals
Ruth Bamberger
Reed Caudill
Anna Craft
Alana Godner-Abravanel
Margaret Hammonds (Whitaker Bank)
Jill Harmer
Sandy Hogg
Carol Ison (Cowan Community Center)
Mary K. Miller
Corinne Sereni
Tony A. Sergent (Letcher County Public Schools)
Dena C. Sparkman (Whitesburg ARH Hospital)
Jenny Wright
Denise Yonts (Letcher County Public Schools)

E2-41
E2-41
E2-42
E2-42
E2-43
E2-43
E2-44
E2-44
E2-45
E2-45
E2-46
E2-46
E2-47
E2-47

Petition
Online Petition – received 625 signatures

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-48 to E2-80

E2-3

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

E2-4

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-5

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-6

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-7

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-8

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-9

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-10

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-11

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-12

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-13

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-14

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-15

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-16

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-17

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-18

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-19

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-20

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-21

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-22

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-23

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-24

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-25

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-26

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-27

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-28

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-29

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-30

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-31

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-32

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-33

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-34

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-35

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-36

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-37

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-38

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-39

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-40

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-41

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-42

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-43

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-44

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-45

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-46

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-47

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-48

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-49

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-50

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-51

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-52

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-53

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-54

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-55

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-56

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-57

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-58

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-59

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-60

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-61

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-62

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-63

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-64

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-65

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-66

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-67

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-68

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-69

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-70

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-71

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-72

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-73

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-74

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-75

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-76

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-77

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-78

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

Appendix E-2
March 2016

E2-79

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

E2-80

Appendix E-2
March 2016

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

APPENDIX F
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY

Appendix F
March 2016

F-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

F-2

Appendix F
March 2016

Federal Correctional Facility
Environmental Impact Statement
Draft Traffic Impact Study
Prepared for:
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

Prepared by:
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF

Revision History:
Revision

Date

Description

Submitted by

1

2/26/15

Revisions by Cardno

L. Walker

2

3/25/15

Revisions by Federal Bureau of Prisons

L. Walker

3

4/23/15

Revisions by Kentucky Transportation Cabinet

L. Walker

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 
1.1. 

Study Purpose and Objectives ............................................................................. 1 

1.2. 

Summary of Proposed Action ............................................................................... 1 

1.3. 

Study Area ................................................................................................................ 1 

1.4. 

Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 2 

2.0 

Existing Conditions and Level of Service...................................................................... 3 

3.0 

Development .................................................................................................................. 4 

4.0 

Trip Generation ............................................................................................................... 7 

5.0 

Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................... 7 

6.0 

Traffic Forecasting and Analysis ................................................................................... 8 

7.0 

Construction Traffic Impacts on Roadway ................................................................... 9 

8.0 

Recommendations / Conclusion ................................................................................ 13 
Appendix A – Traffic Counts
Appendix B – HCS Output
Appendix C – TIS Figures
Appendix D – ESAL Calculations

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

i

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Study Area ..................................................................................................................... 2 
Figure 3-1: Payne Gap Site Development Plan.......................................................................... 5 
Figure 3-2: Roxana Site Development Plan................................................................................. 6 

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: AM Peak Period ............................................................................................................. 4 
Table 2-2: PM Peak Period ............................................................................................................. 4 
Table 4-1: Trip Generation Results ................................................................................................. 7 
Table 6-1: Future Year (2020) AM Peak Period ........................................................................... 8 
Table 6-2: Future Year (2020) PM Peak Period............................................................................ 8 
Table 6-3: Payne Gap Site Intersection Analysis ........................................................................ 8 
Table 6-4: Roxana Site Intersection Analysis ............................................................................... 9 
Table 7-1: FHWA Vehicle Classification (from FHWA) .............................................................. 11 

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

ii

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

1.0

INTRODUCTION

1.1.

Study Purpose and Objectives

Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) was contracted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to conduct a
Traffic Impact Study (TIS) and provide related traffic engineering services in the
evaluation of two alternative sites for a proposed federal correctional facility in Letcher
County, Kentucky.
The purpose of this TIS is to analyze the traffic operating conditions in the vicinity of the
new facility. Specific attention will be given to the proposed access points that will
serve the development. It is the goal of this document to follow the guidelines1
established by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) on traffic impact studies
that impact state-maintained facilities.

1.2.

Summary of Proposed Action

The “Proposed Action” is a proposed federal correctional facility. It is expected that
during construction the Proposed Action would temporarily add the following types of
trips to the highway network:



Construction worker commuting trips
Trips involving the delivery and removal of construction equipment

Following construction, the proposed facility would add traffic to the surrounding
roadway network on a recurring basis. This traffic increase would include employee
commuting trips, plus additional trips (such as the transfer of inmates, inmate visitors,
delivery of supplies and equipment, etc.) that would not necessarily coincide with peak
commuting periods. The proposed facility would have a staff of 300 full-time
employees. The employees would be expected to add trips during peak commuting
periods. Based on hourly count data from KYTC, existing peak periods are 7:00 – 9:00
AM and 3:00 – 5:00 PM on a typical weekday.

1.3.

Study Area

Two potential sites have been identified for the Proposed Action. The first site is referred
to as the Payne Gap Site. It is located approximately 7.5 miles to the east of
Whitesburg, Kentucky. The site is accessed from US 119 and is located east of Bottom
Fork Road (KY 3406) and west of Talman Drive. The other site is referred to as the
Roxana Site. It is located approximately 7.5 miles to the west of Whitesburg, Kentucky.
The site is located south of KY 588 and to the west of KY 160. The site locations are
shown in Figure 1-1.

1

2012 KYTC Traffic Impact Study Requirements;
http://transportation.ky.gov/Permits/Documents/2012%20POLICY-TIS%20Requirements.pdf
Letcher County
1
Traffic Impact Study
Federal Correctional Facility
April 2015

Figure 1-1: Study Area

Access to the Payne Gap Site is expected to be from US 119 only.
Roxana Site is expected to be from KY 588 just east of Tolson Creek

1.4.

Access to the

Data Collection

Data (including Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes) collected for this TIS was
obtained from two different sources:
1) Existing 48-hour traffic counts provided by the KYTC for routes located near the
study sites. These include the following stations:
o
o
o
o

US 119 – Station 272: 2013 AADT = 6,010
KY 160 – Station 755: 2014 AADT = 550
KY 588 – Station 796: 2014 AADT = 330
KY 2036 – Station 776: 2012 AADT = 80

2) Supplemental 48-hour classification counts at four locations conducted January
19 – 21, 2015. These counts were performed at the following locations:

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

2

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

o
o
o
o

US 119 (east of intersection with KY 805)
KY 160 (between KY 2036 and KY 588)
KY 588 (Big Branch Tolson Creek)
KY 588 (just north of Paces Branch Rd)

All count data is included in Appendix A.

2.0

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE

For this analysis, the Highway Capacity Software 2010 package (HCS 2010) based on
the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual was used to assess the peak period traffic
operating conditions for the following study segments that are expected to be most
impacted by the Proposed Action:



US 119
KY 588

US 119 is a four-lane facility with a flush median, and is therefore evaluated as a multilane highway. KY 588 is a two-lane facility and is considered to be a Class II highway2.
Class II highways include lower speed collector roadways and roads primarily designed
to provide access. Levels of service for Class II highways are defined only in terms of a
vehicle’s percent time spent following. Percent time spent following is the average
percent of total travel time that vehicles must travel in platoons behind slower vehicles
because of inability to pass on a two-lane highway3. Average travel speed is not
considered since drivers typically will tolerate lower speeds on a Class II facility because
of its function as an access roadway (serving shorter trips and fewer through trips).
For each study segment, the volume to capacity ratio (v/c) as well as the resulting
levels of service (LOS) was determined. It was assumed that LOS D or better would be
acceptable for KY 588 (rural mountainous collector) based on guidelines from the
AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (6th Edition). For US 119
(rural level arterial), LOS B is the desired LOS based on the same guidelines. Also, it
should be noted that all HCS 2010 output is included in Appendix B.
The major software inputs require roadway geometry (i.e. lane and shoulder widths), as
well as traffic volumes by direction. The roadway geometry for the existing conditions
was determined from the HIS database as well as aerial photos. The traffic volumes
were determined from the data collection efforts.
Based on previous hourly counts from KYTC as well as the hourly counts conducted for
this study, the peak hours on a weekday were noted between 7:00 – 9:00 AM and 3:00 –
5:00 PM. The highest hourly volumes from the counts were used for this analysis from
these time periods. Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 present the v/c ratio and level of service for
the study area segments for both the AM and PM peak periods.
2

Highway classifications for two-lane facilities based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.
Highway Capacity Manual 2010
Letcher County
3
Traffic Impact Study
Federal Correctional Facility
April 2015
3

Table 2-1: AM Peak Period
Segment

v/c ratio

LOS

US 119
KY 588

0.08
0.04

A
A

Table 2-2: PM Peak Period
Segment

v/c ratio

LOS

US 119
KY 588

0.09
0.02

A
A

Traffic volumes are very low on KY 588 (less than 50 vehicles per hour). Based on the
analysis of the v/c ratio, there is plenty of available capacity along these segments. A
ratio of 1.0 is considered at capacity and all ratios shown are substantially below that
threshold.

3.0

DEVELOPMENT

A copy of the development plan for the correctional facility or United States
Penitentiary (USP) was provided by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Included in this
development plan were locations of site access, parking areas and the internal
roadway network. The anticipated completion date is 2020. Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2
provides the preliminary development plans for informational purposes only.

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

4

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

Figure 3-1: Payne Gap Site Development Plan

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

5

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

Figure 3-2: Roxana Site Development Plan

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

6

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

4.0

TRIP GENERATION

The primary development under consideration is a federal correctional facility. A
review of the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th
Edition) does provide data for a similar land use (Land Use 571). Two values are
presented for both the AM and PM Peak hours: 1) Number of trips generated in the
peak hour of the generator; and, 2) In/out distribution percentages of those trips. The
variable these values are based on is the number of employees. Background
information provided by Cardno during the scoping process of this study noted that the
proposed facility would have a staff of 300 full-time employees. Employees would be
expected to add trips during peak commuting periods.
Utilizing this information, Table 4-1 provides a summary of the trip generation results. As
both sites would have the same number of employees, these numbers are valid for
both the Payne Gap and Roxana sites.
Table 4-1: Trip Generation Results
Variable

AM Peak

PM Peak

156
62%
38%

204
27%
73%

Trips Generated
Percent In
Percent Out

A higher number of trips are expected to be generated in the PM Peak period based
on the previous studies performed and documented in the ITE Trip Generation Manual
of traffic patterns associated with a federal correctional facility. There are expected to
be other trips to / from the sites that would not necessarily coincide with peak
commuting periods. These trips include transfer of inmates, inmate visitors, and delivery
of supplies and equipment. Given the low volumes on both KY 588 and US 119, there is
expected to be little to no impact related to these off-peak trips. The peak periods
evaluated represent the “worst case” scenario for traffic impacts to the existing routes.

5.0

TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT

The data collected for this study was used to determine directional splits of traffic
entering / exiting the sites. Only trips generated by the site are included in the
distribution and assignment. It is assumed that no pass-by trips are expected for this
study given the proposed development. Due to the unique nature of the site as well, it
is expected that there will not be any internal capture trips for this study.
Appendix C provides a summary of the trip generation / trip distribution for this study.

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

7

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

6.0

TRAFFIC FORECASTING AND ANALYSIS

The next step involved forecasting the traffic volumes for year 2020 (anticipated
opening year). This was done using historical traffic trends of nearby KYTC count
stations. The stations included 272 (US 119) and 796 (KY 588) in Letcher County. The
change in traffic volumes from year to year resulted in an average decline for each of
these stations ranging from 0.68% to 6.35% per year. Given the trending decline in
growth, the conservative estimate for traffic impacts in the future would be to assume
no growth at this point. Therefore, volumes evaluated for the 2020 year analysis are
assumed to be the same as those used for the current year analysis.
Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 presents the level of service for the two segments previously
evaluated utilizing the assumed 2020 base year volumes with the added trip generation
due to the new prison facility. Table 6-3 and Table 6-4 provide analysis for the new
intersections created by the new access road to the prison. The initial analysis assumed
the intersections were STOP controlled on the minor approach (access road) with the
mainline (KY 588 and US 119) left at free-flow conditions. No turn lanes were assumed
for the initial analysis as well to provide a baseline for operations.
Table 6-1: Future Year (2020) AM Peak Period
Segment

v/c ratio

LOS

US 119
KY 588

0.10
0.09

A
B

Table 6-2: Future Year (2020) PM Peak Period
Segment

v/c ratio

LOS

US 119
KY 588

0.11
0.10

A
B

Table 6-3: Payne Gap Site Intersection Analysis

Approach

AM
Approach
Delay
(sec)

AM
Approach
LOS

PM
Approach
Delay
(sec)

PM
Approach
LOS

Westbound
Northbound

8.2
12.3

A
B

8.0
13.3

A
B

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

8

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

Table 6-4: Roxana Site Intersection Analysis

Approach

AM
Approach
Delay
(sec)

AM
Approach
LOS

PM
Approach
Delay
(sec)

PM
Approach
LOS

Westbound
Northbound

7.5
9.6

A
A

7.4
9.7

A
A

As shown, the intersections at both sites operate at an acceptable LOS. Based on
these volumes, no separate turn lanes are warranted at this time. A review of traffic
signal warrants (per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)) found that
none of the volume warrants were met (Warrant 1: Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume,
Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume, and Warrant 3: Peak Hour). Therefore,
installation of a traffic control signal is not warranted at this time.
After consultation with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC), a recommendation
was made to consider constructing a left turn lane along US 119 and KY 588 into the
site. This consideration was made base on safety implications – looking to reduce the
possibility of a following vehicle rear-ending the turning vehicle. It may be necessary to
move some of the grade drains in the middle of the median along US 119 depending
on the exact entrance to the access road.

7.0

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON ROADWAYS

An additional task as part of this evaluation includes determining the construction
impacts on the roadways accessing the sites.
First, an analysis of the existing pavement of the two key routes was conducted using
construction plans (as available) from KYTC.
US 119
Construction traffic may come from the east (Jenkins area) or west (Whitesburg area)
along US 119. US 119 is a main route in Eastern Kentucky and should be able to support
all associated construction traffic for the development of the site. The evaluation of the
pavement and the supportable load is given below.
Archived design plans for the section of US 119 near the proposed site are from 1971.
The design plans note the following:




24” Stabilized Rock Roadbed
11” Crushed Stone Base
2.75” Asphalt Base

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

9

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015




2.75” Asphalt Base
1” Asphalt Surface

An Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) is a measure of pavement damage and is used in
pavement design. The ESALs (based on future year traffic and truck volumes) is
2,400,000. According to the KYTC calculation sheet, the current design should be
acceptable up to 7,000,000 ESALs. The ESAL calculation sheet is included in Appendix
D. It should be noted that US 119 is a state-maintained coal haul route and has a
maximum gross vehicle weight of 80,000 lbs per KYTC Truck Weight Classification.
Therefore, this route is intended to accommodate heavy truck traffic.
KY 588
The construction traffic would likely access this site from Whitesburg. This route follows
KY 3401 to KY 588 / KY 160. It is a total of approximately 10 miles.
The available archived plans for KY 588 show it as a gravel road. However, it has been
paved since then though those plans were not available for review. Through email
communication with KYTC it was confirmed that no design plans were available.
Therefore, for purposes of this study, an assumption was made that the pavement
design of KY 588 would be less than that of a designated US Route such as US 119. It
was further assumed that KY 588 (as a rural minor collector road with given traffic
volumes and truck traffic) would have a pavement design as follows:





4” Crushed Stone Base
3.00” Asphalt Base
3.00” Asphalt Base
1.25” Asphalt Surface

The ESALs (based on future year traffic and truck volumes) for KY 588 are calculated at
100,000. The ESAL calculation sheet is included in Appendix D. Determination or
confirmation of the pavement design and calculation of the maximum ESALs the
pavement could support should be made and compared to the calculated ESALs
(based on traffic volumes) to confirm if the existing pavement can support the
projected loadings. It can be noted that per KYTC Truck Weight Classification, KY 588 is
designated as a class “A” highway with a maximum gross vehicle weight of 44,000 lbs.
Construction Traffic Types
Next, research was conducted to obtain the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
vehicles classification. These categories are presented in Table 7-1.

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

10

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

Table 7-1: FHWA Vehicle Classification (from FHWA)

Type

Description

Typical
ESALs per
Vehicle

Motorcycles

All two- or three-wheeled motorized vehicles.
Typical vehicles in this category have saddle
type seats and are steered by handle bars
rather than wheels. This category includes
motorcycles, motor scooters, mopeds, motorpowered bicycles, and three-wheel
motorcycles. This vehicle type may be
reported at the option of the State.

negligible

All sedans, coupes, and station wagons
manufactured primarily for the purpose of
carrying passengers and including those
passenger cars pulling recreational or other
light trailers.

negligible

Other Two-Axle,
Four-Tire Single Unit
Vehicles

All two-axle, four tire, vehicles, other than
passenger cars. Included in this classification
are pickups, panels, vans, and other vehicles
such as campers, motor homes, ambulances,
hearses, and carryalls. Other two-axle, fourtire single unit vehicles pulling recreational or
other light trailers are included in this
classification.

negligible

4

Buses

All vehicles manufactured as traditional
passenger-carrying buses with two axles and
six tires or three or more axles. This category
includes only traditional buses (including
school buses) functioning as passengercarrying vehicles. All two-axle, four-tire single
unit vehicles. Modified buses should be
considered to be a truck and be appropriately
classified.

0.57

5

Two-Axle, Six-Tire, Single
Unit Trucks

All vehicles on a single frame including
trucks, camping and recreational vehicles,
motor homes, etc., having two axles and dual
rear wheels.

0.26

6

Three-Axle Single Unit
Trucks

All vehicles on a single frame including
trucks, camping and recreational vehicles,
motor homes, etc., having three axles.

0.42

Class

1

2

3

Passenger Cars

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

11

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

Typical
ESALs per
Vehicle

Description

Class

Type

7

Four or More Axle Single Unit
Trucks

All trucks on a single frame with four or more
axles.

0.42

8

Four or Less Axle Single
Trailer Trucks

All vehicles with four or less axles consisting
of two units, one of which is a tractor or
straight truck power unit.

0.30

9

Five-Axle Single Trailer
Trucks

All five-axle vehicles consisting of two units,
one of which is a tractor or straight truck
power unit.

1.20

10

Six or More Axle Single
Trailer Trucks

All vehicles with six or more axles consisting
of two units, one of which is a tractor or
straight truck power unit.

0.93

11

Five or Less Axle MultiTrailer Trucks

All vehicles with five or less axles consisting
of three or more units, one of which is a
tractor or straight truck power unit.

0.82

12

Six-Axle Multi-Trailer Trucks

All six-axle vehicles consisting of three or
more units, one of which is a tractor or
straight truck power unit.

1.06

13

Seven or More Axle MultiTrailer Trucks

All vehicles with seven or more axles
consisting of three or more units, one of
which is a tractor or straight truck power unit.

1.39

Flatbed trucks that may transport construction equipment to / from the site would be
classified as a Class 13. Most dump trucks will be classified as Class 7. Therefore
construction equipment at the site may consist of a range of vehicles between these
classes but these will be assumed to provide the upper and lower boundaries of
impact.
To avoid damage to the existing roadways, it is recommended that the construction
traffic loading not exceed the determined design pavement ESAL loadings calculated
for each location. For US 119, vehicle weight limits should not exceed 80,000 lbs to
comply with legal weight limits on this route.
Mitigation Measures
US 119 is not expected to have adverse impacts related to construction traffic based
on the assessment of pavement design and geometric standards.
Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

12

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

KY 588 has the potential to require mitigation measures due to additional construction
traffic given the narrow lane widths and pavement design that is not at a level for a
national or state truck route. Construction traffic may also affect other roadways in
Letcher County. The location and intensity of these impacts can be estimated
following the selection of the construction contractor(s).
To minimize impacts on KY 588, and other potentially affected roadways in Letcher
County, the selected construction contractor would be required to perform an
assessment of the routing of construction traffic to the site. Based on this analysis, the
contractor would be required to:




8.0

To the extent feasible, route construction vehicles so that the gross vehicle
weight does not exceed the maximum weight limitations established by the KYTC
and / or the pavement loading conditions set forth by the ESAL evaluation.
For roadways that construction traffic may exceed these limitations, damage to
the roadway surface would be need to be repaired by the contractor.
For oversized vehicles and loads, maintenance of traffic plans should be
developed to accommodate to maintain traffic flow during transport times. This
will likely utilize flaggers to negotiate traffic flow as a result of narrow lanes.

RECOMMENDATIONS / CONCLUSION

The results presented in this document provide an overview of the anticipated traffic
impacts associated with the construction of a proposed federal correctional facility in
Letcher County, Kentucky. Based on the analysis conducted for this study:


Both proposed sites have minimal impact on the traffic operations of the existing
nearby state routes (US 119 and KY 588). The projected LOS for traffic operations
is LOS A or B which is at or better than the desired LOS B for US 119 and LOS D for
KY 588.



Consideration should be given to constructing a left turn lane on US 119 and KY
588 into the site to minimize the potential for rear-end vehicle collisions.
Depending on the exact site access, grade drains may need to be moved.



Construction impacts to the existing US 119 roadway are expected to be minimal
(if any).



KY 588 has the potential to require mitigation measures as it is not a designated
truck route and has limiting geometric features including narrow lane widths.
Other roadways in Letcher County may also be affected, depending on the
origin(s) of construction trips. The selected contractor for the development of
this project would be required to perform an assessment of the routing of
construction traffic to the site and potentially repair any surface damage
caused by moving equipment as well as provide maintenance of traffic plans for
moving oversized vehicles / equipment.

Letcher County
Federal Correctional Facility

13

Traffic Impact Study
April 2015

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

APPENDIX G
ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS

Appendix G
March 2016

G-1

Revised Final Environmental Impact Statement for USP and FPC Letcher County, Kentucky

(This page intentionally left blank)

G-2

Appendix G
March 2016

Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment for Proposed United
States Penitentiary and Federal
Prison Camp
Payne Gap, Letcher County, Kentucky

Prepared by:

October 2015
United States Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Prisons
320 First Street, NW
Washington, DC 20534

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

SUMMARY
Cardno was retained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at a 753-acre property, herein
referred to as the subject property, located in eastern Letcher County, Kentucky. The subject property,
which composed of multiple parcels under private ownership, is being considered for purchase by the
Federal Bureau of Prisons for the construction of a new federal correctional facility.
This ESA meets or exceeds the requirements of the American Society for Materials and Testing (ASTM)
Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E
1527-13. This document follows the recommended structure for an ESA provided in ASTM E 1527-13.
This report was prepared pursuant to an inquiry into the prior ownership and uses of the subject property,
consistent with good commercial and customary practice.
A REC is defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products
in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release
to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the
environment. A REC can include hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in
compliance with laws. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions and are
defined as conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that
generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate
governmental agencies.
No Phase I ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for RECs to exist in connection
with a property. This ESA has been prepared to reduce, but not eliminate, uncertainty regarding the
existence of RECs in connection with the property, recognizing the limits of cost and time. This
assessment has revealed no evidence of RECs in connection with the subject property except for an open
plastic storage tank with stained soil located at the oil pumping station near the northeast portion of the
property.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
1

2

3

4

Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1

Purpose.......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Detailed Scope of Services ........................................................................................................... 1

1.3

Significant Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 2

1.4

Limitations and Exceptions........................................................................................................... 3

1.5

Special Terms and Conditions ...................................................................................................... 3

1.6

User Reliance ................................................................................................................................ 3

Site Description .................................................................................................................................... 3
2.1

Location and Legal Description .................................................................................................... 3

2.2

Site and Vicinity General Characteristics ..................................................................................... 4

2.3

Current Use of the Property .......................................................................................................... 4

2.4

Description of Structures, Roads and other Improvements on the Subject Property .................... 4

2.5

Current Uses of Adjoining Properties ........................................................................................... 4

2.6

Physical Setting ............................................................................................................................. 5

2.6.1

Climate .................................................................................................................................. 5

2.6.2

Topography ........................................................................................................................... 5

2.6.3

Geology ................................................................................................................................. 5

2.6.4

Soils....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.6.5

Surface Water........................................................................................................................ 6

2.6.6

Groundwater ......................................................................................................................... 6

User Provided Information ................................................................................................................... 7
3.1

Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations ................................................................. 7

3.2

Specialized Knowledge ................................................................................................................. 7

3.3

Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues ............................................................................ 7

3.4

Owner, Manager, Occupant Information ...................................................................................... 7

Records Review .................................................................................................................................... 7
4.1

Title Records ................................................................................................................................. 7

4.2

Standard Environmental Record Sources...................................................................................... 9

4.3

Additional Environmental Record Sources................................................................................. 11

4.3.1

Building Permit Records ..................................................................................................... 11

4.3.2

Tax Map .............................................................................................................................. 11

i

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

4.4

5

6

7

Historical Use Information of Subject Property and Adjoining Properties ................................ 11

4.4.1

Historical Topographic Maps.............................................................................................. 11

4.4.2

Historical Aerial Photos ...................................................................................................... 12

4.4.3

Sanborn Maps ..................................................................................................................... 13

4.4.4

City Directories ................................................................................................................... 13

Site Reconnaissance............................................................................................................................ 14
5.1

Methodology and Limiting Conditions ....................................................................................... 14

5.2

General Site Setting .................................................................................................................... 14

5.3

Exterior and Interior Observations .............................................................................................. 14

Interviews ........................................................................................................................................... 15
6.1

Owners ........................................................................................................................................ 16

6.2

Officials....................................................................................................................................... 16

6.3

Lessees ........................................................................................................................................ 16

Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................... 16
7.1

8

October 2015

Findings....................................................................................................................................... 16

7.1.1

Storage Tanks and Pipelines ............................................................................................... 17

7.1.2

Solid Waste ......................................................................................................................... 17

7.1.3

Septic Tanks and/or Leachfields ......................................................................................... 17

7.2

Opinion and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 17

7.3

Data Gaps .................................................................................................................................... 17

7.4

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 18

7.5

Limiting Conditions/Deviations.................................................................................................. 18

Non-Scope Considerations ................................................................................................................. 18
8.1

Asbestos Containing Materials ................................................................................................... 18

8.2

Lead Based Paint......................................................................................................................... 18

8.3

Radon .......................................................................................................................................... 18

9

References........................................................................................................................................... 19

10

Certification ........................................................................................................................................ 20

ii

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Parcel Identification and Property Owners ..................................................................................... 4
Table 2. Deed History of Subject Property Parcels....................................................................................... 8
Table 3. Mining Permit Holders of Subject Property ................................................................................... 9
Table 4. Federal, Kentucky, and Virginia Records – EDR Report ASTM Standard Radius Search .......... 10
Table 5. Historical Topographic Maps Reviewed....................................................................................... 12
Table 6. Historical Aerial Photos Reviewed ............................................................................................... 12

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Figures
Appendix B: Photographic Record
Appendix C: Radius Map
Appendix D: Topographic Maps
Appendix E: Aerial Photographs
Appendix F: City Directories
Appendix G: User Questionnaire
Appendix H: Qualifications

iii

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

iv

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose
Cardno was retained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) at a 753-acre property located
in Letcher County, Kentucky, approximately 7 miles northeast of Whitesburg. The subject property is
situated along the Kentucky and Virginia border and south of the North Fork Kentucky River just west of
its confluence with Kings Creek, and south of U.S. Route 119 (Figure 1 in Appendix A).
Cardno conducted this ESA in accordance with the ASTM International Designation: E1527-13, Standard
Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (ASTM
E1527-13). This standard defines good and customary practice for conducting an ESA of a parcel of real
estate with respect to petroleum products and the range of contaminants regulated under the Federal
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The ASTM
standard is intended to permit a user to satisfy one of the requirements to qualify for the “innocent
landowner” defense to CERCLA liability. However, it should be noted that the property subject to this
ESA is composed of multiple, privately-owned parcels of land.
This document follows the recommended structure for an ESA provided in ASTM E1527-13.
The goal of this Phase I ESA is to identify RECs on the subject property. A REC is defined as the
presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1)
due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3)
under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. A REC includes
hazardous substances or petroleum products even under conditions in compliance with laws. De minimis
conditions are not recognized environmental conditions, generally do not present a threat to human health
or the environment, and generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the
attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Structures on the subject property were also assessed for
the potential presence of suspect asbestos-containing material, lead-based paint, and radon although no
samples were collected during the Phase I ESA.
This Phase I ESA report documents the environmental conditions of the subject property as observed on
July 22 and 23, 2015. The results of this assessment are limited to a visual site reconnaissance, a state and
federal regulatory database review, and interviews with individuals familiar with the subject property. No
samples were collected of any environmental media (soil, water, asbestos, etc.) during this study.
Information pertaining to environmental issues was gathered through site observations, interviews, and
available documentation, as appropriate. A series of photographs taken at the subject property is included
in the Photographic Record (Appendix B).

1.2 Detailed Scope of Services
This report was prepared in response to the request by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to conduct an ESA
in accordance with ASTM E1527-13.
The scope of services for this ESA included the following:
•

Phase I ESA in accordance with the standards of the ASTM as set forth in Practice E 1527-13.

1

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

•
•
•
•

October 2015

Title search or assessor records review back to the first developed use or to 1940, whichever is
earlier.
Visual site inspection of the subject property and surrounding area to evaluate present conditions.
Evaluation of the historical use of the subject property, by reviewing aerial photographs and
historic topographic maps reasonably available from public sources and Sanborn maps.
Review of records reasonably available from appropriate federal, state, and local regulatory
agencies for documented soil and/or groundwater contamination investigations conducted at the
subject property and vicinity, as defined in the ASTM standard.

•

Review of the compliance history of the subject property, and of any adjacent sites, as identified
by the regulatory database review.

•
•
•

Interviews with individuals familiar with the subject property and surrounding areas.
Review of the proposed site plan.
Presentation of the aforementioned services in this report.

1.3 Significant Assumptions
The research, site reconnaissance, and interviews conducted in support of this ESA are based upon
assumptions intended to be referred to in resolving any ambiguity or exercising such discretion as is
accorded the user or environmental professional in performing an ESA or in judging whether a user or
environmental professional has conducted appropriate inquiry or has otherwise conducted an adequate
ESA. These assumptions are as follows:
•

Records reviewed are assumed to be complete as provided by the source of the record
(government agencies or commercial services) and current as of the date of review. Government
information obtained from non-governmental agencies is considered current if the source updates
the information at least every 90 days or, for information that is updated less frequently than
quarterly by the governmental agency, within 90 days of the date the government agency makes
the information available to the public.

•

It is assumed that person(s) interviewed in connection with this ESA have answered all questions
posed by the person(s) conducting the interview, in good faith, to the extent of their actual
knowledge.

•

No ESA can wholly eliminate uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental
conditions in connection with a property. This ESA is intended to reduce, but not eliminate,
uncertainty regarding the potential for recognized environmental conditions in connection with a
property, and within reasonable limits of time and cost. All appropriate inquiry does not mean an
exhaustive assessment of a clean property. There is a point at which the cost of information
obtained or the time required to gather it outweighs the usefulness of the information and, in fact,
may be a material detriment to the orderly completion of transactions.

•

Not every property will warrant the same level of assessment. Consistent with good commercial
or customary practice, the level of assessment was guided by the type of property subject to
assessment, the expertise and risk tolerance of the user, and the information developed in the
course of the inquiry. It is assumed that ESAs must be evaluated based on the reasonableness of
judgments made at the time and under the circumstances in which they were made. Subsequent
ESAs should not be considered valid standards to judge the appropriateness of any prior
2

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

assessment based on hindsight, new information, use of developing technology or analytical
techniques, or other factors.

1.4 Limitations and Exceptions
In preparing this report, Cardno has relied on information derived from secondary sources, computer
databases, and personal interviews. Except as detailed in the report, Cardno has not attempted to verify
the accuracy and completeness of the information derived from the secondary sources cited in the report.
Cardno makes no claims, warranties, or guarantees as to the accuracy of the information contained within
the studies, reports, and data reviews that Cardno did not complete for this assessment. Cardno therefore
offers this report based on the assumption that such information is accurate and complete.
The findings, observations, and conclusions set forth in this report are limited by the client (also referred
to as “user”) and/or contract technical specifications and the methods employed in meeting these
specifications. The services requested by the client have been performed in accordance with currently
accepted industry standards for the conduct of ESAs. In order to perform a comprehensive environmental
evaluation, subsurface investigation and testing would be required in order to definitively determine
whether contamination has affected the subject property.
This ESA is site-specific in that it relates to assessment of environmental conditions on a specific parcel
of commercial real estate. Consequently, this practice does not address many additional issues raised in
transactions such as purchases of business entities, or interests therein, or of their assets, that may well
involve environmental liabilities pertaining to properties previously owned or operated or other off-site
environmental liabilities.

1.5 Special Terms and Conditions
No special terms and conditions associated with the preparation of this report were identified.

1.6 User Reliance
This report was prepared solely for the use of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and is not intended for use
by third parties. Unauthorized third parties shall indemnify and hold Cardno harmless against any liability
for any loss arising out of, or related to, reliance by any third party on any work performed hereunder, or
the contents of this report.

2 SITE DESCRIPTION
The following text provides a legal description of the subject property, its location, and the general
characteristics of the property and surrounding area.

2.1 Location and Legal Description
The subject property consists of approximately 753 acres of land encompassing 10 parcels with nine
separate land owners identified by the Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) listed in Table 1. The subject
property is located in Payne Gap, Kentucky. The location and boundary of the subject property is
illustrated in figures contained in Appendix A.

3

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

Table 1. Parcel Identification and Property Owners
APN
Owner
051-00-00-105.00
Mrs. John C. Craft
051-00-00-108.01
David and Judy Wayne
052-00-00-017.00
Walter Kincer
052-00-00-024.00
James Bullion
052-00-00-023.00
James Bullion
052-00-00-021.00
Donna Bullion
052-00-00-025.00
Louella Hitchcock
052-00-00-022.00
Wilise Page
051-00-00-108.00
Elijah Johnson
052-00-00-042.01
Elkhorn Stone

2.2 Site and Vicinity General Characteristics
The subject property is located approximately 7 miles east of Whitesburg, Kentucky. It is south of U.S.
Route 119, east of Bottom Fork Road (KY 3406), and west of Talman Drive (Dark Hollow). The area was
previously deep mined; however, mining activities no longer occur at the subject property. Land use
surrounding the subject property is also primarily forested, with small single-family residences adjacent to
the subject property. There are no zoning ordinances or land use classifications identified for this area
(DePriest 2013).

2.3 Current Use of the Property
Land use associated with the subject property consists primarily of forested areas. The subject property is
adjacent to the Jefferson National Forest. A few residences are located on the perimeter of the subject
property. Recreational activities such as off-roading with all-terrain vehicles and hunting occur on the
subject property.

2.4 Description of Structures, Roads and other Improvements on the
Subject Property
Fork Drive and Talman Drive both provide access to the subject property. U.S. Route 119 is designated as
a rural principal arterial by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (2014). Several unnamed, unimproved
roads and trails are found on the subject property and may be remnants of mining access roads.
Two residences are located on the subject property near the center of its western border.

2.5 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
Surrounding land uses are predominantly residential to the north, east, and west of the subject property.
To the south, the subject property abuts the Virginia border, beyond which is a continuation of the
Jefferson National Forest.

4

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

2.6 Physical Setting
The following sections describe the environmental setting of the subject property and include information
on climate, topography, geology, soils, surface water, and groundwater.

2.6.1 Climate
The subject property is located in the Eastern Kentucky Coal Field Region. This region experiences mild
spring and autumn weather, but temperatures rise to 90 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) an average of 20 days per
year (Arnold 2015). The Kentucky climate is characterized by warm summers, with average high
temperatures in the mid-80s, and cool winters, with average low temperatures in the high-30s to mid-40s.
Kentucky experiences average annual precipitation ranging from over 40 inches in far northern Kentucky
to more than 50 inches in south central Kentucky. Precipitation tends to be well distributed throughout the
year, though the fall is typically a bit drier than other seasons. Weather producing extremes of
precipitation can develop quickly or persist for extended periods. Flash floods, usually resulting from
intense but short lived thunderstorms or from storms training over an area, occur throughout Kentucky,
but are a particular concern in the rugged terrain of eastern Kentucky, which is characterized by steep
slopes and narrow valleys. Drought occurs periodically in Kentucky. When it does, it is often
accompanied by oppressive heat (Foster no date [n.d.]).

2.6.2 Topography
The topography on the subject property is typified by the mountains valleys complex associated with
western Appalachian Mountains. The topography at Payne Gap has been significantly affected by strip
mining activities, which historically occurred on the subject property and ceased in the early 1990’s.
According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute Jenkins West topographic
quadrangle map, the elevation on subject property ranges from a low of 1,385 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL) in the northwest corner of the subject property adjacent to the North Fork of the Kentucky River
and a high of 2,965 feet AMSL on Pine Mountain in the southern portion of the subject property
(University of Kentucky 2013). The majority of slopes on subject property are very steep, well over 15
percent.

2.6.3 Geology
The subject property is underlain by the Breathitt Group, which is composed of the Pikeville Formation
and the Hyden Formation. The geology underlying the subject property is primarily Pikeville Formation,
which is composed of numerous coal zones, shale members, and limestones (Kentucky Geological
Survey, University of Kentucky 2015).
The area of interest within the project limits has been mined through a combination of pre-law contour
mining and room and pillar deep mining from 1950 through 1990. An extensive search of Kentucky
mining databases revealed that the coal seams of importance in the area of the subject property consist of
the following (in descending order): Upper and Lower Amburgy seams (approximate elevation 1,810
feet), and Upper Elkhorn Number 3 (approximate elevation 1,640 feet). Some of the crop coal of the
Elkhorn 3 seam was removed by “pre-law” contour strip mining prior to 1950. Between 1950 and 1960,
the majority of the crop coal was removed by the room and pillar method of deep mining. The remaining
on-site crop coal of the Elkhorn 3 was removed by contour strip mining; this occurred through 1990.

5

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

Extensive mine spoil in varying depths was put back on the abandoned contour strip benches during mine
reclamation. These benches are now heavily forested (Letcher County Planning Commission 2009).

2.6.4 Soils
The soils underlying the subject property are varied as a result of topography and mining disturbance, but
none of the soils are listed as hydric by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The three
most common soils at the subject property are composed of the Cloverlick-Kimper-Highsplint complex
(30-65 percent slopes), the Dekalb-Gilpin-Raye complex (25-65 percent slopes), and the Kaymine,
Fairpoint, and Fiveblock soil series (2-70 percent slopes). To a lesser degree, the following soils underlie
the subject property: Caneyville-Renox-Bledsoe complex (50-80 percent slopes), Shelocta-Highsplint
complex (30-65 percent slopes), and Urban land Udorthents complex (0-15 percent slopes) (NRCS 2015).
These soils have not been designated by NRCS as prime farmland soils.

2.6.5 Surface Water
Although the National Wetlands Inventory mapping does not depict any wetlands on the subject property,
approximately 2.84 acres (1.15 hectares) of wetlands have been delineated on the subject property (TEC
Inc. 2011; Cardno 2014). Wetlands are located throughout the site and are generally associated with
surface drainage features, depressions and areas of ponding.
Several intermittent, perennial, and ephemeral streams were delineated on subject property (TEC Inc.
2011; Cardno 2014). The North Fork Kentucky River is located just north of the subject property, Laurel
Fork is located to the west of the subject property, and Cook Hollow/Holbrook Brook is located to the
east of the subject property.
The subject property is depicted on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map Panel 21133C00140C. According to the map, the subject property is not located in a
100-year floodplain (FEMA 2008).

2.6.6 Groundwater
Two domestic single household drinking water wells are located near the northern boundary of the subject
property. Well ID 00057785 is approximately 560 feet east of Fork Drive and is reported to be 100 feet
deep. Well ID 00045519 is located approximately 530 feet southeast of Fork Drive and is reported to be
160 feet deep (Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky 2015). Groundwater flow tends to
follow the sloped topography and is assumed to flow to the north, east, and west towards the North Fork
Kentucky River, Cook Hollow, and Laurel Fork, respectively. Variations in groundwater conditions are
expected based on location and elevation across the subject property, seasonal conditions, and weather
patterns. The subject property is underlain by the Breathitt Group, which is comprised of the Pikeville
Formation and the Hyden Formation. The Breathitt Group yields more than 500 gallons per day in more
than three-quarters of the wells drilled in valley bottoms, more than 500 gallons per day in about threequarters of the wells on hillsides, and more than 100 gallons per day to nearly all wells on ridges within
Letcher County (Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky 2015). There are no sole source
aquifers underlying the subject property (United States Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]
2013).
The quality of the groundwater in Letcher County ranges from moderately hard in most of the county to
moderately soft south of Pine Mountain. Naturally occurring contaminants present in the groundwater

6

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

consist of sulfate, salt (sodium chloride), iron, and manganese (Kentucky Geological Survey, University
of Kentucky 2015).
According to the Kentucky Division of Water, Groundwater Branch, Letcher County has areas of
moderate and high sensitivity to groundwater pollution. The hydrogeologic sensitivity reflects the ease
and speed with which a contaminant can move into and within a groundwater system. The hydrogeologic
sensitivity of Letcher County has been assigned a value of three out of five, with five being the most
susceptible to groundwater pollution and one being the least susceptible. The region is given a three due
to the observation that subcutaneous drains and enlarged fractures influence groundwater recharge, fissure
networks influence flow, and bidirectional dispersal patters influence overall dispersion (Kentucky
Department of Environmental Protection 1994).

3 USER PROVIDED INFORMATION
3.1 Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations
No information on environmental liens or activity and use limitations were provided by the user.

3.2 Specialized Knowledge
No specialized knowledge about the subject property was provided by the user.

3.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues
No information on valuation reduction for environmental issues was provided by the user.

3.4 Owner, Manager, Occupant Information
The subject property is currently comprised of ten separate parcels with nine property owners. Current
property owners are listed in Table 3-1.

4 RECORDS REVIEW
The purpose of the records review is to obtain and review records that will help identify RECs in
connection with the property. Reasonably ascertainable information from standard environmental and
historical record sources is reviewed for the subject and surrounding properties. The objective of
consulting historical sources is to develop a history of the previous uses of the property and the
surrounding area, in order to help identify the likelihood of past uses having led to RECs in connection
with the property. Some standard historical sources may be excluded if the sources are not reasonably
ascertainable, or if past experience indicates that the sources may not be sufficiently useful, accurate, or
complete in terms of satisfying the objectives.

4.1 Title Records
Title records for the subject property were reviewed at the Whitesburg Courthouse on July 24, 2015 and
are summarized in Table 2. Title records were reviewed back to the first developed use or to 1940,
whichever is earlier.

7

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

APN
051-00-00-105.00

051-00-00-108.01

052-00-00-017.00

052-00-00-024.00

052-00-00-023.00

052-00-00-021.00

052-00-00-025.00

052-00-00-022.00

October 2015

Table 2. Deed History of Subject Property Parcels
Owner
Deed
Date Purchased
(Current owner shown in bold)
Book/Page
Mrs. John C. Craft
330/635
November 16, 1994
Donald Lee and Mary Rutherford
330/635
September 7, 1989
Reed Wright
Allie Isom Presnell
291/410
September 7, 1989
G.W. Holbrook
86/161
October 14, 1935
David and Judy Wayne
368/246
October 15, 2003
Danny Lee and Joyce Mae Mullins
309/488
September 23, 1992
Samuel and Janice Johnson
280/675
November 7 1986
Joyce Mullins
289/296
December 10, 1984
Walter Kincer
379/234
April 19, 2005
Marie Reed
367/276
January 22, 2003
James Reed and Betty Ables
341/174
December 15, 1998
Emmett and Victoria Kincer
191/362
December 17, 1970
Alice Vanover
424/362
August 9, 1965
Ira Craft
No data
September 8, 1921
James Bullion
399/295
October 30, 2008
Isaac Craft
391/658
September 7, 2008
Milburn and Francis Craft
188/373
April 7, 1970
Reuben and Norma Craft, Judy
62/450
December 21, 1921
Bullion Craft and Blaine Bullion
Northern Coal and Coke Company
38/304
December 10, 1920
James Bullion
389/518
May 21, 2007
Norma Lee Craft
366/695
November 16, 2001
Dale and Stephanie Craft, Donald and 188/374
April 7, 1970
Cora Craft, and William and Linda
Sue Williams
Norma Lee and Reuben Craft
188/374
April 7,1970
Milburn and Francis Craft, Judy Craft 62/450
December 15, 1971
Bullion and Blaine Bullion
Northern Coal and Coke Company
38/304
December 10, 1920
Donna Bullion
354/665
June 14, 2001
Thelma Bullion
295/375
July 14, 1990
Virgil Bullion
185/166
March 31, 1969
Nagatha Venter and Alberta and Jesse 173/293
April 23, 1966
Elkins
Laura Brown and John Henry Bentley 173/293
April 23, 1966
Nagatha and Alberta Elkins
149/599
May 27, 1957
Isaac Brown
70/160
January 14, 1927
Louella Hitchcock
392/193
September 24, 2007
Julia Bullion
133/272
December 31, 1949
Marion and Huldy Craft
62/450
December 15, 1921
Northern Coal and Coke Company
38/304
December 10, 1920
Wilise Page
376/659
March 10, 2005
Leona Page
376/656
February 11, 1958
Sillar Craft
66/510
September 23, 1924

8

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

APN
051-00-00-108.00

052-00-00-042.01

October 2015

Table 2. Deed History of Subject Property Parcels
Owner
Deed
Date Purchased
(Current owner shown in bold)
Book/Page
314/418
September 1992
Elijah Johnson et al.
William and Della Johnson
129/43
December 23, 1948
Nannie Isom Craft
59/227
February 9, 1920
402/655
July 15, 2009
Elkhorn Stone
Pine Mountain Stone
354/436
January 1, 2001
Clarence Moore and Sam Webb
169/249
Jun 18, 1964
W Melvin and Jean Adams
156/268
June 19, 1959
Elkhorn Coal Company
154/519
December 12, 1958
Commonwealth of Kentucky
151/262
October 8, 1957

A review of the Kentucky Coal Mine Map Viewer and Information System as well as the Kentucky
Surface Mining Viewer provided information regarding mining permit holders for the subject property.
Mining permit holders are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Mining Permit Holders of Subject Property
State File/Permit
Number
92407 A through H

02141/01004
20703/00444
01574
04397-A
05323

04397
02703
17775-2

Permittee
Myrtle Coal Co., Elkhorn Coal Co., Little Jake Coal Co.,
Addington Coal Co., KY River Coal Co., Bentley & White Coal
Co., Dotson Coal Co., Johnson Coal Co., Lester Cook Coal Co.,
Siler & Bates Coal Co.
Don Smith Coal Co., Edna Coal Co., Clean Coal Co.
Anchor Coal Co.
Don Smith Coal Co., Johnson Coal Co., Edna Coal Co., Lester
Cook Coal Co., Siler & Bates Coal Co., K. Dan Coal Co.
Don Smith Coal Co., Laurel Branch Coal Co., Johnson Coal Co.,
Lester Cook Coal Co., Adair Coal Co., Siler & Bates Coal Co.,
W.H. Coal Co., Myrtle Coal Co., KY River Coal Co., Lester
Cook Coal Co., Clean Coal Co., Don Smith Coal Co., Johnson
Coal Co.
Elkhorn Coal Co.
Harlow Coal Co.
Freeman Fuels of Kentucky Inc.

Year
1950

1955
1956
1956
1956
1957

1959
1960
1990

4.2 Standard Environmental Record Sources
Documents reviewed for the preparation of this report included the search results of federal and
Commonwealth of Kentucky environmental records databases, USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle historical
topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, and Sanborn fire insurance maps.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) was contracted to prepare a GeoCheckTM Report to identify
potential sources of contamination at the subject and adjacent properties (EDR 2015a). The GeoCheckTM
Report was derived from the search of federal and Commonwealth of Kentucky environmental database

9

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

records for the subject and adjacent properties. The report was prepared to meet, at a minimum, the
government records search requirements of ASTM E1527-13. EDR also provided the USGS 7.5 minute
quadrangle historical topographic maps, historical aerial photographs, and Sanborn maps.
Table 4 lists the ASTM-required search databases, the distance searched per database, and the associated
results. Due to the size of the parcel being investigated, minimum search distances were extended onequarter mile to ensure complete coverage for the multi-parcel subject property. Extension of the search
radius resulted in the need to include some Commonwealth of Virginia databases in the search. Appendix
C contains the GeoCheckTM Report, including the list of searched databases (ASTM-required as well as
supplemental databases), database descriptions and results, dates when updates were made, specified
search distances, and maps.
Only one of the numerous databases searched, the KY SPILLS database, contained information relevant
to the subject property. The KY SPILLS database is a listing of spill and/or release related incidents. One
incident, recorded in 2006, documents the reporting of fugitive emissions of dust from coal truck traffic in
an area off of U.S. Route 119 halfway between Jenkins and Whitesburg in Bill Lewis Hollow. Based on
the nature and location of the reported release, to the east of the subject property, the incident it is not
considered to pose a threat of contaminating the subject property.
Table 4. Federal, Kentucky, and Virginia Records – EDR Report ASTM
Standard Radius Search
Database
FEDERAL
NPL
Proposed NPL
Delisted NPL
NPL liens
CERCLIS
CERCLIS-NFRAP
FEDERAL FACILITY
CORRACTS
RCRA-TSDF
RCRA-LQG
RCRA-SQG
RCRA-CESQG
ERNS
KENTUCKY
KY&VA SHWS
KY&VA SWF/LF
KY SB139
KY PSTEAF
INDIAN LUST
KY UST
INDIAN UST
FEMA UST
KY&VA ENG CONTROLS
KY&VA INST CONTROLS
KY&VA VCP
INDIAN VCP
KY&VA BROWNFIELDS

10

Search Radius
(miles)

Number of Sites
Identified

1.25
1.25
1.25
0.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
1.25
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

1.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

Table 4. Federal, Kentucky, and Virginia Records – EDR Report ASTM
Standard Radius Search
Database

Search Radius
(miles)
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25

US BROWNFIELDS
DEBRIS REGION 9
ODI
KY HIST LF
KY SWRCY
INDIAN ODI
US CDL
KY CDL
US HIST CDL
HMIRS
KY&VA SPILLS

Number of Sites
Identified
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

Source: EDR 2015a.
Note:
See Appendix C for a complete report, including explanation and description of
acronyms.

4.3 Additional Environmental Record Sources
A list of the additional records sources reviewed/searched during the preparation of this Phase I ESA is
provided in the EDR Radius Map report contained in Appendix C. Only one additional database, the
Mines Master Index File (US MINES), contained information regarding the subject property. The US
MINES database contains mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The
data also includes violation information. According to the database, 8 mines are located on or within a
half-mile of the subject property.

4.3.1 Building Permit Records
The complete collection of building permit data available to EDR was searched, and as of June 16, 2015,
EDR did not have access to building permits for the municipality in which the subject property is located.

4.3.2 Tax Map
EDR performed a search of available property tax maps for the subject property and identified no tax map
coverage for the area including the subject property.

4.4 Historical Use Information of Subject Property and Adjoining
Properties
4.4.1 Historical Topographic Maps
Historical USGS topographic maps are useful for identifying historical land uses in an area, including
road networks, development, and agricultural uses and other land use designations. The results of the
review of USGS data from historical topographic maps for the years available are presented in Table 5.
Copies of the referenced maps are contained in Appendix D.

11

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

Table 5. Historical Topographic Maps Reviewed
USGS 7.5’
Quadrangle

Date
1914

1954
Jenkins West

1979

1992

Details Observed
The 1914 topographic map depicts the subject property as being largely
undeveloped. Structures located on or near the property are located along
existing streams and surface waters of Laurel Fork, Kentucky River, and
Holbrook Brook. Route 119 to the north is depicted as a light duty road.
Several more structures are depicted on the subject property and unimproved
roads are depicted entering the subject property from its western border along
Laurel Fork and its eastern border along Holbrook Brook, which is now
labeled Cook Hollow. The area is labeled “Strip Mines” and several tunnel or
cave entrances are depicted on the subject property. Route 119 to the north
has been improved to a secondary highway.
The 1979 topographic map looks the same as the 1954 map except the
subject property now contains multiple areas of mine tailing deposition
throughout the subject property that coincide with the subject property
topography.
The 1992 topographic map looks similar to the 1979 map except that the
mine tailing areas are no longer depicted and several coinciding areas are no
longer depicted as being forested. Route 119 to the north has been improved
to a highway.

Source: EDR 2015b.

4.4.2 Historical Aerial Photos
Photographs taken from an aerial platform with sufficient resolution to allow for the identification of
development and activities occurring on the subject property and adjoining properties were obtained from
EDR and reviewed. The results of the review of the historical aerial photographs for the years available
are presented in Table 6. Multiple aerial photos were reviewed for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012 in
order to provide complete coverage of the subject property. Copies of these aerial photographs are
contained in Appendix E.
Table 6. Historical Aerial Photos Reviewed
Date
1952

1961

1975
1979
1988

Details Observed
The northern half of the subject property is being actively mined and access roads and
several areas of disturbance are visible. Disturbed areas appear to coincide with topography.
The southern half of the subject property is undisturbed and forested.
The 1961 photo is similar to the 1952 photo; however, mining activity appears to have
diminished. Disturbed areas in the northern half of the subject property appear smaller in
size and are less apparent. The southern half of the subject property is not depicted in the
1961 photos.
The 1975 photo is similar to the 1961 photo; however, mining activity appears to have
diminished even further. Disturbed areas in the northern half of the subject property appear
even smaller in size and are less apparent. The southern half of the subject property is
undisturbed and forested.
The 1979 photo looks the same as the 1975 photo.
Mining activity appears to have increased in the northeastern portion of the subject property
in the 1988 aerials photos and new areas of disturbance are apparent. Fork Road is also
visible at the subject property’s northern boundary. The southern half of the subject
property is undisturbed and forested.

12

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

Table 6. Historical Aerial Photos Reviewed
Date
1995

2000

2005

2008

2009
2010
2011
2012

Details Observed
Mining activity in the northeast portion of the subject property is greatly expanded and large
areas appear to have been cleared. The northwestern portion of the subject property appears
to be recovering and areas of disturbance are becoming less apparent. The southern half of
the subject property is undisturbed and forested.
The 2000 photo is similar to the 1995 photo; however, mining activity appears to have
diminished. Disturbed areas in the northeastern portion of the subject property appear
smaller in size and are less apparent. A vehicle staging area can be seen at the northeast
corner of the subject property. The southern half of the subject property is undisturbed and
forested.
In the 2005 photo, nearly all of the formerly mined areas have been vegetated with only one
small area of disturbance being visible near the eastern boundary of the subject property.
Mining activity appears to have moved to the eastern adjacent area. A residence appears to
be located near the western boundary of the subject property. The southern half of the
subject property is undisturbed and forested.
In the 2008 photo, nearly all of the formerly mined areas have been vegetated and are
becoming increasingly forested. Only two small areas of disturbance are on the subject
property. Mining activity to the east also appears to have diminished with disturbed areas
becoming revegetated. The southern half of the subject property is undisturbed and forested.
The 2009 photo appears the same as the 2008 photo. The two small areas of disturbance
continue to be disturbed and appear to contain unimproved roads
In the 2010 photos, a road traversing the subject property appears to have been widened and
improved. The remainder of the subject property appears the same as in the 2009 photo.
The 2011 photos appear the same as the 2010 photo.
The 2012 photos appear the same as the 2011 photo.

Source: EDR 2015c.

4.4.3 Sanborn Maps
The complete holdings of the Sanborn Library, LLC collection were searched by EDR with regard to the
subject property, and no fire insurance maps covering the subject property were found.

4.4.4 City Directories
A City Directory Report for the subject property was provided by EDR. City Directories are reviewed to
evaluate the potential liability of the subject property resulting from past activities. The EDR City
Directory Report includes a search of available city directory data at 5-year intervals. Cole Information
Services Directories were searched for the years 1992, 1995, 1999, 2003, 2006, and 2013. The subject
property and adjoining property addresses and property owners were not listed for any of the years
searched. Several properties were listed on Highway 119 North for the years 1999, 2003, 2006, and 2013.
Only one property, a commercial business, was identified near the subject property in the city directories.
The 2006 and 2013 city directories list Kings Corner Rhino Linings was located at 7937 Highway 119
North, across the highway from the subject property. This property was also listed as Perfect Fit Truck
and Car Accessories in the 2003 city directory (EDR 2015d). A copy of the city directory search results is
contained in Appendix F.

13

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

5 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
The objective of the site reconnaissance is to obtain information indicating the likelihood of RECs in
connection with the property that may not be obvious to the owner/occupants.

5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions
The Cardno staff visited the subject property on July 22 and July 23, 2015 and conducted site
reconnaissance to identify visible evidence of potential environmental contamination. Specifically, the
ESA team looked for evidence of previous contamination such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

stained surface soils or distressed vegetation;
disturbed surface soils or reclaimed areas;
discarded containers, residues, and pools of liquid;
electrical equipment such as transformers and capacitors;
aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), underground storage tanks (USTs), piping, sumps, or other
types of impoundment structures;
abandoned structures and associated utilities; and
drainage structures and direction of stormwater runoff on the subject parcels and adjacent areas.

The survey involved visually inspecting the subject property and the adjoining properties to the extent
that these properties were readily accessible during the time of the visual inspection. Cardno staff
members inspected the subject property and conducted interviews with persons who were knowledgeable
about the historical and current use of the subject property. A complete set of photographs from this
inspection is provided in Appendix B and interview forms are provided in Appendix G. The photographs
locations are depicted on Figure 2 in Appendix A.

5.2 General Site Setting
The subject property is located in a mountainous area of eastern Kentucky and was historically subject to
coal mining activity that has resulted in large areas of tailing deposits and steep slopes across the subject
property. The subject property is primarily forested, with isolated cleared areas and remnants of a
warehouse type structure. A small oil extraction facility is also located on the subject property. The
subject property abuts Jefferson National Forest at its southern boundary.

5.3 Exterior and Interior Observations
The subject property is largely undeveloped but contains remnant structures from historical mining
activities. Along the eastern boundary of the subject property, an active oil extraction operation was
observed on property owned by Elkhorn Stone, Incorporated. Placards on the oil extraction equipment
indicated it was the property of EQT. The pumping station was secured within a chain link fence and no
stained soils or other obvious sign of surface contamination were observed. It should be noted that heavy
overnight rains had occurred prior to the site inspection resulting in wet soils that could obscure stains
from view. To the north of the pumping station, two aboveground tanks, one plastic and one steel, were
observed. Both tanks were within an unlined bermed area and were placarded as containing petroleum
crude oil. The plastic container was observed to be open on top and an approximately 2-foot-long area of
darkly stained soil was observed beneath it along its western edge. EQT was contacted regarding the
tanks, but did not respond to inquiries. Additional rust stained areas were observed near the tank piping.

14

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

No obvious staining was observed beneath the steel tank. The open plastic tank with stained soil is
considered to be a REC.
South of the oil pumping station are the remnants of a 75 foot by 35 foot warehouse type structure. The
structure was of concrete block construction with a concrete slab-on-grade floor and steel roof trusses.
The interior of the structure contained floor drains, and roof trusses were observed to be painted. Fires
appear to have been lit inside the structure. Based on review of historic aerial photos the structure appears
to have been constructed in the late 1990s.
Moving southwest through the heavily forested area, a natural gas transmission pipeline was observed.
Further west was a large grassy clearing containing a hunting blind, field camera, and feeding station. A
tractor was observed at the western extent of the clearing along with tiller and mower attachments, a
mattress frame, and several empty containers. The tractor appeared to be in good condition and no leaks
or stains were observed on or beneath it.
A sandy clearing was observed to the east of the grassy clearing. A portion of the clearing appeared to be
heavily worn by off-road vehicles in a small track-like area. An oily sheen observed on some of the
puddle surfaces within the track area is considered to be a de minimis condition. Numerous discarded tires
were observed in this area as well as empty plastic bottles and other small amounts of household trash. To
the west of the track area was a heavily eroded sandy area. The erosion had exposed buried PVC piping.
The piping appeared to lead to an area of cinder blocks. Based on review of historic aerial photos, it
appears that a manufactured building may have been located in this area when the subject property
supported mining operations. The PVC piping is assumed to have conveyed water and possibly waste
material to and from the building. A single, pole-mounted light was also observed in this area. No
transformers were observed in the vicinity of the light.
To the south of the eroded area, a log road leads south up toward Indian Grave Gap. PVC piping was
observed along the road side. Several hundred feet up the trail, the PVC piping was observed to be broken
with water flowing out of it. At the terminus of the log road a large steel cistern with an interior plastic
tank was observed. The cistern appeared to be placed in this location for the collection of spring water for
conveyance downhill. It is assumed that this PVC pipeline was connected to the structure whose remnants
were observed in the eroded area.
A dumping area was observed off of the access road from Bottom Fork-Laurel Fork Road. This dumping
area contained an intact cathode ray tube television and construction debris. A second dumping area
containing tires was observed along the access road that traverses the northern portion of the subject
property. No visible evidence of releases (e.g., distressed vegetation, stained surface soils) was observed
in the vicinity of the two dumping sites and no hazardous materials (i.e., paints, solvents pesticides) were
observed among the discarded materials.

6 INTERVIEWS
The objective of the interviews is to obtain information indicating the likelihood of RECs in connection
with the property. In the case of abandoned properties, where there is evidence of potential unauthorized
uses of the abandoned property or evidence of uncontrolled access to the abandoned property, interviews
with one or more owners or occupants of neighboring or nearby properties are conducted.

15

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

6.1 Owners
Cardno interviewed Mr. Elijah Johnson on July 24, 2015 with regard to the condition of the subject
property. Mr. Johnson is a current landowner of a large area of the subject property. For the purposes of
this Phase I ESA he is considered to be the major occupant of the subject property. Mr. Johnson had no
knowledge of any land use restrictions, liens, chemical usage, or historic disposal activities on the subject
property. All coal excavations were backfilled with overburden and all machinery used for mining was
removed from the subject property. Mr. Johnson had no knowledge of any remediation activities being
conducted on the subject property.
Cardno interviewed Mr. Link Lemaster of Mountain Enterprises (an affiliate of Elkhorn Stone) on
September 28, 2015 with regard to the property. According the Mr. Lemaster, Elkhorn Stone only owns
the mineral rights to the limestone on the subject property. Mr. Lemaster indicated that there was a
residence on the subject property (Appendix B, Photos 20–25) at one time and that the PVC piping
observed during site reconnaissance supplied water to the residence.

6.2 Officials
Cardno staff interviewed Mr. Elwood Cornett, Chairman of the Letcher County Planning Commission, on
September 3, 2015 regarding the subject property. According to Mr. Cornett, the property was subject to
surface mining and deep mining activity for the removal of coal ore. No processing of coal was conducted
on the subject property. Coal ore was removed from the subject property and trucked elsewhere for
processing. Mr. Cornett had no knowledge of any liens or use limitations associated with the site or of
any hazardous materials being present, historically or currently, on the subject property.

6.3 Lessees
According to a Mine History report prepared as part of a site feasibility study, the last mining operation at
Payne Gap occurred in the 1990s and was conducted by Freeman Fuels of Kentucky, Incorporated.
Cardno attempted to contact Mr. Daniel V. Freemen, Director of Freeman Fuels, on September 28, 2015,
but he was not available to answer questions (the person answering the call reported his unavailability
was due to poor health).
Prior to the 1990s mining operations, the area was mined by several companies in the 1950s and 1960s.
Similar attempts were made to contact personnel associated with those mining companies and were
unsuccessful.

7 EVALUATION
7.1 Findings
The results of the visual site inspection, record search, and interviews pertaining to the subject property
are discussed below. These findings reflect conditions identified at the subject property or considered to
have the potential to affect the subject property and include, but are not limited to, RECs, Controlled
RECs, Historical RECs and de minimis conditions as defined in ASTM E1527-13.

16

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

7.1.1 Storage Tanks and Pipelines
The open plastic storage tank located at the oil pumping station near the northeast portion of the subject
property is considered to be a REC due to the fact that the open tank presents a material threat of release.
The stained soil observed adjacent to the tank is also indicative of a release and considered a REC. The
fact that the bermed area is unlined is an environmental concern. Although no leaks or stains were
observed at the oil pump near the plastic tank, it is considered to be an environmental concern as it is a
potential source of petroleum contamination.

7.1.2 Solid Waste
Several areas where dumping has occurred were observed on the subject property and are an
environmental concern. Although no hazardous materials were observed, the refuse and debris should be
removed from the subject property.

7.1.3 Septic Tanks and/or Leachfields
A residence was historically located on the subject property and was plumbed with PVC piping. This
piping was observed to convey water to the former site of the residence. Additional piping was also
observed that may be associated with an on-site septic system. Plastic piping observed to be buried in the
vicinity of the residence is an environmental concern.

7.2 Opinion and Recommendations
Based on information collected during the preparation of this report, a Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment should be performed on the subject property, prior to its acquisition, to confirm the
absence/presence of hazardous materials or petroleum products. Specifically the Phase II ESA is
recommended at the open plastic tank located at the oil pumping station. At a minimum, it is
recommended that field screening of surficial soils be conducted to determine whether a release of
petroleum has occurred. If field screening indicates the presence of petroleum in surficial soils, subsurface
soil samples should be collected to determine the depth and extent of the release. Prior to sampling, the
area should be assessed to determine the presence and effectiveness of any liners inside the bermed area.
If groundwater is encountered, groundwater grab samples are recommended.
It is also recommended that all household trash, tires and debris be removed from the subject property and
disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.

7.3 Data Gaps
No information regarding the warehouse structure, its use, or potential contents was obtained and is
considered a data gap. Information regarding this structure and its use would indicate whether the floor
drains observed within it are potential sources of environmental contamination.
No information regarding the residential structure formerly located on the site was obtained and is
considered a data gap. Information regarding the residence would indicate whether a leachfield is present
on the subject property.
Limited information regarding the coal mining operations conducted at the site was available for review
and no persons directly involved in coal mining activities at the site were available for interview.
Therefore, the extent of coal mining operations cannot be ascertained and is considered a data gap. It is

17

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

unknown whether any coal processing was historically conducted at the subject property or how fuels,
oils, lubricants, and machinery were stored, managed, or disposed of during mining operations.

7.4 Conclusions
Cardno has performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice
E1527 of the subject property in Payne Gap, KY. Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are
described in Section 8.5 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized
environmental conditions in connection with the property except for the open plastic storage tank with
stained soil located at the oil pumping station near the northeast portion of the subject property.

7.5 Limiting Conditions/Deviations
No substantial deviations from ASTM Practice E 1527-00 were involved with the preparation of this
report. The subject property was characterized by steep slopes and thick undergrowth that limited access
to many areas. All reasonable attempts were made to inspect the subject property to the fullest extent.

8 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 Asbestos Containing Materials
No sampling for asbestos was conducted as part of this Phase I ESA. No potentially asbestos containing
materials were observed during the site inspection.

8.2 Lead Based Paint
No sampling for lead based paint was conducted as part of this Phase I ESA. Based on review of historic
aerial photographs, the warehouse structure observed on the subject property appears to have been
constructed in the late 1990s and therefore is not likely to contain lead based paint.

8.3 Radon
Radon is a naturally occurring, colorless, odorless, radioactive gas produced by the decay of uranium in
rock and soil. Radon is a known carcinogen, responsible for increasing the risk of lung cancer when
inhaled. Electrically charged radon atoms can attach to indoor air dust particles. Subsequently these dust
particles may be inhaled and adhere to the lining of the lungs. The deposited atoms decay by emitting
radiation that has the potential to cause cellular damage. Typically outside air contains very low levels of
radon (USEPA 2015), but tends to accumulate in enclosed indoor spaces. When present, radon gas would
typically concentrate in relatively airtight buildings with little outside air exchange. The USEPA classifies
Letcher County as having a moderate potential for radon intrusion (Zone 2). Zone 2 counties have a
predicted average indoor radon screening level between 2 and 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L). The USEPA
action level for radon is 4 pCi/L.

18

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

9 REFERENCES
Arnold, Elizabeth. 2015. Climate in the Regions of Kentucky. USA Today.
http://traveltips.usatoday.com/climate-regions-kentucky-104975.html
Cardno. 2014. Draft Supplemental Jurisdictional Delineation Payne Gap and Roxana Sites. Prepared for
Federal Bureau of Prisons. August.
DePriest, Joe. 2013. Economic Development Director, Letcher County. Personal Communication.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR). 2015a. The EDR Radius Map™ Report With Geocheck. June 16,
2015.
. 2015b. EDR Historical Topographic Map Report.
. 2015c. EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package.
. 2015d. EDR City Directory Image Report.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map Letcher County,
Kentucky and Incorporated Areas. Map number 21133C0140C. March 18.
Foster, Stuart. No date (n.d.). Highlighting Kentucky’s Climate: What You Expect Isn’t Always What
You Get. Kentucky’s Climate, Tho Cocorah’s “State Climates” Series.
Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. 1994. Division of Water: Groundwater Branch.
Groundwater Sensitivity Regions of Kentucky.
http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsweb/download/wrs/sensitivity.pdf.
Kentucky Geological Survey, University of Kentucky. 2015. Kentucky Geologic Map Information
Service. http://kgs.uky.edu/kgsmap/kgsgeoserver/viewer.asp.
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. 2014. Functional Classification.
http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning/Pages/Functional-Classification.aspx.
Letcher County Planning Commission. 2009. Mine History Report Volume III, Payne Gap Site. Prepared
by Summit Engineering. August.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Websoil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
TEC Inc. 2011. Draft Wetland Identification and Delineation Report, Payne Gap/Lawson Site, Letcher
County, Kentucky. Prepared for Federal Bureau of Prisons. August.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Region 4: Ground Water Protection,
Sole Source Aquifers in the Southeast http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/groundwater/r4ssa.html.
. 2015. Radon (Rn). http://www.epa.gov/radon/. Updated March 3, 2015, accessed June 1, 2015.

19

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

10 CERTIFICATION
I declare, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental
Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 312.
I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess the property of the
nature, history, and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed all appropriate
inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

October 8, 2015
Erika A. Fuery

Date

Environmental Scientist
Cardno

20

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

Appendix A: Figures

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

K E N T U C K Y

_
^

Letcher County

£
¤
119

119

£
¤

u
nt
Ke

y
ck

rg
Vi

Legend
Subject Property Boundary
Major Road

ia
in
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS
User Community

Figure 1. Subject Property Location Map
0

0.25

0.5
Miles

±

Photos 3 through 6
Photos 1 and 2

Photos 7 through 10

Legend

Figure 2 Photo Location Map
(1 of 3)

Photo Location

Subject Property Boundary

0

125

±

250
Feet

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Photo 11

Photo 28

Photo 27

Photo 12
Photos 13 through 15

Legend

Figure 3 Photo Location Map
(2 of 3)

Photo Location

Subject Property Boundary

0

125

250
Feet

±

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Photos 16
through 18

Photo 22

Photos 20 and 21

Photo 19

Photo 23
Photos 24
and 25

Legend

Figure 4 Photo Location Map
(3 of 3)

Photo Location

Subject Property Boundary

0

125

250
Feet

±

Photo 26

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,
Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

Appendix B: Photographic Record

October 2015

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photo Number: 1

Description: Oil pumping station
near eastern
boundary of subject
property

Photo Number: 2
Description: Piping associated with oil
pumping station.
Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 3
Description: Storage tanks within
unlined bermed area
northeast of oil pumping
station

Photo Number: 4
Description: Steel oil storage tank

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 5
Description: Plastic storage tank with
stained soil

Photo Number: 6
Description: Open top of plastic
storage tank

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 7
Description: Remnants of warehouse
structure

Photo Number: 8
Description: Floor drain in
warehouse structure

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 9
Description: Painted roof
trusses in
warehouse
structure

Photo Number: 10
Description: Remnants of fire in warehouse
structure.

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 11
Description: Gas transmission line
observed near center of
subject property

Photo Number: 12
Description: Hunting blind in grassy
clearing near western
boundary of subject
property

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 13
Description: Tractor and mattress
frame at western end of
grassy clearing

Photo Number: 14
Description: Tractor and mower
attachment

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 15
Description: Tiller attachment for
tractor at western
end of grassy
clearing

Photo Number: 16
Description: Abandoned tires near sandy clearing
near eastern boundary of subject
property

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 17
Description: Discarded tires near
sandy clearing near
eastern boundary of
subject property

Photo Number: 18
Description: Oily sheen in puddle in race
track area near sandy clearing

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 19
Description: Pole mounted light
fixture in heavily eroded
sandy area

Photo Number: 20
Description: PVC piping exposed by
erosion

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 21
Description: Additional PVC
piping exposed by
erosion

Photo Number: 22
Description: Remnants of
manufactured
building

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 23
Description: Broken PVC
pipe conveying
water

Photo Number: 24
Description: Cistern
structure for
water
collection

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 25
Description: Interior of water
collection cistern

Photo Number: 26
Description: Indian Grave Gap

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Photographic Record
Client: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Job Number: 004253

Photo Number: 27
Description: Dump site
containing
electronics and
construction
debris

Photo Number: 28
Description: Discarded tires

Location: Payne Gap, KY
Date: July 2015

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

Appendix C: Radius Map

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Paynes Gap
199 County Road 1417
Mayking, KY 41837
Inquiry Number: 4327237.23s
June 16, 2015

The EDR Radius Map™ Report with GeoCheck®

6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

FORM-LBB-DXG

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION

PAGE

Executive Summary

ES1

Overview Map

2

Detail Map

3

Map Findings Summary

4

Map Findings

8

Orphan Summary

12

Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking

GR-1

GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum

A-1

Physical Setting Source Summary

A-2

Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map

A-5

Physical Setting Source Map

A-11

Physical Setting Source Map Findings

A-13

Physical Setting Source Records Searched

PSGR-1

Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,

environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2015 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC4327237.23s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS

199 COUNTY ROAD 1417
MAYKING, KY 41837
COORDINATES

Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:

37.1421000 - 37˚ 8’ 31.56’’
82.6972000 - 82˚ 41’ 49.92’’
Zone 17
349261.6
4111780.8
1849 ft. above sea level

USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY

Target Property Map:
Most Recent Revision:

37082-B6 JENKINS WEST, KY VA
1992

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT

Portions of Photo from:
Source:

20120706, 20120627
USDA

TC4327237.23s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
199 COUNTY ROAD 1417
MAYKING, KY 41837
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP
ID
SITE NAME

ADDRESS

DATABASE ACRONYMS

RELATIVE
ELEVATION

DIST (ft. & mi.)
DIRECTION

A1

FREEMAN FUELS OF KY

US MINES

Lower

1 ft.

A2

BLUEGRASS AUGERS INC

US MINES

Lower

1 ft.

3

M & N CONSTRUCTION C

US MINES

Lower

1 ft.

A4

FREEMAN FUELS OF KY

US MINES

Lower

1 ft.

KY SPILLS

Lower

661, 0.125, NE

5
B6

BLUE GRASS AUGERS IN

US MINES

Lower

1442, 0.273, WSW

B7

A & T AUGERING INC

US MINES

Lower

1442, 0.273, WSW

B8

FREEMAN FUELS OF KY

US MINES

Lower

1443, 0.273, WSW

9

PHILLIPS CREEK COAL

US MINES

Higher

1965, 0.372, SE

4327237.23s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS

The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.

DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES

No mapped sites were found in EDR’s search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:

STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS

Federal NPL site list
NPL
Proposed NPL
NPL LIENS

National Priority List
Proposed National Priority List Sites
Federal Superfund Liens

Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL

National Priority List Deletions

Federal CERCLIS list
CERCLIS
FEDERAL FACILITY

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
Federal Facility Site Information listing

Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List
CERC-NFRAP

CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned

Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS

Corrective Action Report

Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF

RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal

Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG
RCRA-SQG
RCRA-CESQG

RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator

Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
US ENG CONTROLS
US INST CONTROL

Engineering Controls Sites List
Sites with Institutional Controls

TC4327237.23s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LUCIS

Land Use Control Information System

Federal ERNS list
ERNS

Emergency Response Notification System

State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
KY SHWS
VA SHWS

State Leads List
This state does not maintain a SHWS list. See the Federal CERCLIS list and Federal
NPL list.

State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
KY SWF/LF
VA SWF/LF

Solid Waste Facilities List
Solid Waste Management Facilities

State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
KY SB193
KY PSTEAF
INDIAN LUST

SB193 Branch Site Inventory List
Facility Ranking List
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land

State and tribal registered storage tank lists
KY UST
VA UST
INDIAN UST
FEMA UST

Underground Storage Tank Database
Registered Petroleum Storage Tanks
Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Underground Storage Tank Listing

State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
KY ENG CONTROLS
VA ENG CONTROLS
KY INST CONTROL
VA INST CONTROL

Engineering Controls Site Listing
Engineering Controls Sites Listing
State Superfund Database
Voluntary Remediation Program Database

State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
KY VCP
VA VCP
INDIAN VCP

Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites
Voluntary Remediation Program
Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing

State and tribal Brownfields sites
VA BROWNFIELDS
KY BROWNFIELDS

Brownfields Site Specific Assessments
Kentucky Brownfield Inventory

ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS

Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS

A Listing of Brownfields Sites

Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
DEBRIS REGION 9

Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations

TC4327237.23s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ODI
KY HIST LF
KY SWRCY
INDIAN ODI

Open Dump Inventory
Historical Landfills
Recycling Facilities
Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands

Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US CDL
KY CDL
US HIST CDL

Clandestine Drug Labs
Clandestine Drub Lab Location Listing
National Clandestine Laboratory Register

Local Land Records
LIENS 2

CERCLA Lien Information

Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS
VA SPILLS

Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Prep/Spills Database Listing

Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
DOT OPS
DOD
FUDS
CONSENT
ROD
UMTRA
TRIS
TSCA
FTTS
HIST FTTS
SSTS
ICIS
PADS
MLTS
RADINFO
FINDS
RAATS
RMP
KY UIC
VA UIC
KY DRYCLEANERS
VA DRYCLEANERS
KY NPDES
VA NPDES
KY AIRS
VA AIRS
KY LEAD
INDIAN RESERV
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
KY Financial Assurance
KY COAL ASH

RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
Incident and Accident Data
Department of Defense Sites
Formerly Used Defense Sites
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
Records Of Decision
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Substances Control Act
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
Section 7 Tracking Systems
Integrated Compliance Information System
PCB Activity Database System
Material Licensing Tracking System
Radiation Information Database
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
Risk Management Plans
UIC Information
Underground Injection Control Wells
Drycleaner Listing
Drycleaner List
Permitted Facility Listing
Comprehensive Environmental Data System
Permitted Airs Facility Listing
Permitted Airs Facility List
Environmental Lead Program Report Tracking Database
Indian Reservations
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
Financial Assurance Information Listing
Coal Ash Disposal Sites

TC4327237.23s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
VA COAL ASH
VA Financial Assurance
LEAD SMELTERS
US AIRS
EPA WATCH LIST
US FIN ASSUR
COAL ASH EPA
PCB TRANSFORMER
COAL ASH DOE
2020 COR ACTION
PRP

Coal Ash Disposal Sites
Financial Assurance Information Listing
Lead Smelter Sites
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
EPA WATCH LIST
Financial Assurance Information
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB Transformer Registration Database
Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
2020 Corrective Action Program List
Potentially Responsible Parties

EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS

EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP
EDR US Hist Auto Stat
EDR US Hist Cleaners

EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners

EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES

Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
KY RGA LF
KY RGA HWS
VA RGA LF

Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List

SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS

Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases.
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS

Records of Emergency Release Reports
KY SPILLS: A listing of spill and/or release related incidents.
A review of the KY SPILLS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 05/05/2015 has revealed that there is 1
KY SPILLS site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
Lower Elevation
____________________
Not reported
Facility Status: Env. Closed
Inc ID: 211630

Address
________

Direction
/ Distance
___________________

Map
_____ID

Page
_____

NE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.125 mi.)

5

9

TC4327237.23s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Other Ascertainable Records
US MINES: Mines Master Index File. The source of this database is the Dept. of Labor, Mine Safety
and Health Administration.
A review of the US MINES list, as provided by EDR, and dated 12/30/2014 has revealed that there are 8
US MINES sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation
____________________

Address
________

PHILLIPS CREEK COAL

Lower Elevation
____________________
FREEMAN FUELS OF KY
BLUEGRASS AUGERS INC
M & N CONSTRUCTION C
FREEMAN FUELS OF KY
BLUE GRASS AUGERS IN
A & T AUGERING INC
FREEMAN FUELS OF KY

Address
________

Direction
/ Distance
___________________

Map
_____ID

Page
_____

SE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.372 mi.)

9

11

Direction
/ Distance
___________________

Map ID
_____

Page
_____

0 - 1/8 (0.000 mi.)
0 - 1/8 (0.000 mi.)
0 - 1/8 (0.000 mi.)
0 - 1/8 (0.000 mi.)
WSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.273 mi.)
WSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.273 mi.)
WSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.273 mi.)

A1
A2
3
A4
B6
B7
B8

8
8
8
9
10
10
10

TC4327237.23s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped. Count: 3 records.
Site
Name
____________

Database(s)
____________

DOT
PARCEL 127 DOT
US 119 - LETCHER CO

KY SB193
KY SB193
KY SWF/LF

TC4327237.23s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

EDR Inc.

EDR Inc.

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY

Database

Search
Distance
(Miles)

Target
Property

>1

Total
Plotted

< 1/8

1/8 - 1/4

1/4 - 1/2

1/2 - 1

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
NR

0
0
NR

0
0
NR

0
0
0

1.250

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.750
0.750

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

NR
NR

0
0

0

0

0

0

NR

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NR

0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR

0
0
0

0.750
0.750
0.750

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

NR
NR
NR

0
0
0

0.250

0

0

NR

NR

NR

0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

NR
NR

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

NR
NR

0
0

STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS

Federal NPL site list
NPL
Proposed NPL
NPL LIENS

1.250
1.250
0.250

Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL
Federal CERCLIS list
CERCLIS
FEDERAL FACILITY

Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List
CERC-NFRAP

0.750

Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS

1.250

Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF

0.750

Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG
RCRA-SQG
RCRA-CESQG

0.500
0.500
0.500

Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
US ENG CONTROLS
US INST CONTROL
LUCIS
Federal ERNS list
ERNS

State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
KY SHWS
VA SHWS

1.250
1.250

State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
KY SWF/LF
VA SWF/LF

0.750
0.750

State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
KY SB193
KY PSTEAF

0.750
0.750

TC4327237.23s Page 4

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY

Database

Search
Distance
(Miles)

INDIAN LUST

0.750

Target
Property

>1

Total
Plotted

< 1/8

1/8 - 1/4

1/4 - 1/2

1/2 - 1

0

0

0

0

NR

0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR
NR

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0

NR
NR
0
0

NR
NR
NR
NR

0
0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

NR
NR
NR

0
0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

NR
NR

0
0

0

0

0

0

NR

0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

0
0
0
0
0

0.250
0.250
0.250

0
0
0

0
0
0

NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR

0
0
0

0.250

0

0

NR

NR

NR

0

0
0
0

0
1
0

NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR

0
1
0

State and tribal registered storage tank lists
KY UST
VA UST
INDIAN UST
FEMA UST

0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500

State and tribal institutional
control / engineering control registries
KY ENG CONTROLS
VA ENG CONTROLS
KY INST CONTROL
VA INST CONTROL

0.500
0.500
0.750
0.750

State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
KY VCP
VA VCP
INDIAN VCP

0.750
0.750
0.750

State and tribal Brownfields sites
VA BROWNFIELDS
KY BROWNFIELDS

0.750
0.750

ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS

Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS

0.750

Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
DEBRIS REGION 9
ODI
KY HIST LF
KY SWRCY
INDIAN ODI

0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750
0.750

Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
US CDL
KY CDL
US HIST CDL
Local Land Records
LIENS 2

Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS
KY SPILLS
VA SPILLS

0.250
0.250
0.250

TC4327237.23s Page 5

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY

Database

Search
Distance
(Miles)

Target
Property

>1

Total
Plotted

< 1/8

1/8 - 1/4

1/4 - 1/2

1/2 - 1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
4
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
0
NR
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
NR
0
NR

NR
NR
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
0
NR
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR
DOT OPS
DOD
FUDS
CONSENT
ROD
UMTRA
US MINES
TRIS
TSCA
FTTS
HIST FTTS
SSTS
ICIS
PADS
MLTS
RADINFO
FINDS
RAATS
RMP
KY UIC
VA UIC
KY DRYCLEANERS
VA DRYCLEANERS
KY NPDES
VA NPDES
KY AIRS
VA AIRS
KY LEAD
INDIAN RESERV
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
KY Financial Assurance
KY COAL ASH
VA COAL ASH
VA Financial Assurance
LEAD SMELTERS
US AIRS
EPA WATCH LIST
US FIN ASSUR
COAL ASH EPA
PCB TRANSFORMER
COAL ASH DOE
2020 COR ACTION
PRP

0.500
0.250
1.250
1.250
1.250
1.250
0.750
0.500
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.500
0.500
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
1.250
0.750
0.250
0.750
0.750
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.750
0.250
0.250
0.500
0.250

EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS

EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP

1.250

TC4327237.23s Page 6

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY

Database

Search
Distance
(Miles)

EDR US Hist Auto Stat
EDR US Hist Cleaners

0.500
0.500

Target
Property

>1

Total
Plotted

< 1/8

1/8 - 1/4

1/4 - 1/2

1/2 - 1

0
0

0
0

0
0

NR
NR

NR
NR

0
0

0
0
0

0
0
0

NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR

NR
NR
NR

0
0
0

4

0

0

9

EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES

Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
KY RGA LF
KY RGA HWS
VA RGA LF
- Totals --

0.250
0.250
0.250
0

4

1

NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database

TC4327237.23s Page 7

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation

MAP FINDINGS

Site

A1

FREEMAN FUELS OF KY INC

< 1/8
1 ft.

LETCHER (County), KY

Database(s)

EDR ID Number
EPA ID Number

US MINES

1016483390
N/A

US MINES

1011164357
N/A

US MINES

1011165531
N/A

Site 1 of 3 in cluster A
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
1730 ft.

US MINES:
Mine ID:
SIC code(s):
Entity name:
Company:
Status:
Status date:
Operation Class:
Number of shops:
Number of plants:
Latitude:
Longitude:

A2

BLUEGRASS AUGERS INC

< 1/8
1 ft.

LETCHER (County), KY

1515793
122200 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
MOUNTAIN TOP #2
FREEMAN FUELS OF KY INC
D
19910630
Coal Mining
0
0
37 08 35
082 41 30

Site 2 of 3 in cluster A
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
1746 ft.

US MINES:
Mine ID:
SIC code(s):
Entity name:
Company:
Status:
Status date:
Operation Class:
Number of shops:
Number of plants:
Latitude:
Longitude:

1513686
122200 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
NO 1 SURFACE
BLUEGRASS AUGERS INC
D
19820901
Coal Mining
0
0
37 08 35
082 41 30

3

M & N CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC

< 1/8
1 ft.

LETCHER (County), KY

Relative:
Lower
Actual:
1592 ft.

US MINES:
Mine ID:
SIC code(s):
Entity name:
Company:
Status:
Status date:
Operation Class:
Number of shops:
Number of plants:
Latitude:
Longitude:

1514861
122200 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
NO 1 SURFACE
M & N CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC
D
19860301
Coal Mining
0
0
37 08 51
082 41 57

TC4327237.23s Page 8

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation

MAP FINDINGS

Site

A4

FREEMAN FUELS OF KY INC

< 1/8
1 ft.

PIKE (County), KY

Database(s)

EDR ID Number
EPA ID Number

US MINES

1016151752
N/A

KY SPILLS

S117104069
N/A

Site 3 of 3 in cluster A
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
1730 ft.

5
NE
1/8-1/4
0.125 mi.
661 ft.
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
1392 ft.

US MINES:
Mine ID:
SIC code(s):
Entity name:
Company:
Status:
Status date:
Operation Class:
Number of shops:
Number of plants:
Latitude:
Longitude:

1516506
122200 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
STRIP AND AUGER #1
FREEMAN FUELS OF KY INC
D
19920330
Coal Mining
0
0
37 21 13
082 37 09

LETCHER (County), KY

SPILLS:
Facility Status:
Incident Type:
Program Code:
Received By Staff:
Received Date:
Report Date:
Dispatch Description:
Source Name:
Source Address:
Substances:
Other Substances Desc:
Media Impacted:
Inc ID:
Lead Invest Person ID:
Compliance:
Notification:
Priority:
Incident End Date:
Follow Up Priority Desc:
Most Recent Comp Eval Activity:
Most Recent ENF Activity:
Begin Emergency Date:
End Emergency Date:
MARS Function Code:
Locked:
Closure Type Desc:
Latitude:
Longitude:

Env. Closed
AIR RELEASE, FUGITIVE EMISSIONS
Not reported
McCune, Rich
09/02/2006
8/2/06 12:27
Coal truck traffic is causing excessive amounts of dust. "This dust is
killing us."
Not reported
Off of Highway 119 halfway between Jenkins and Whitesburg in Bill
Lewis Hollow in Letcher Co.
Not reported
Not reported
Air
211630
7112
Yes
No
Routine
9/27/2006 12:00:00 AM
Routine
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
82.689372
-37.149764

TC4327237.23s Page 9

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation

B6
WSW
1/4-1/2
0.273 mi.
1442 ft.
Relative:
Lower
Actual:
1607 ft.

MAP FINDINGS

Site

BLUE GRASS AUGERS INC

US MINES:
Mine ID:
SIC code(s):
Entity name:
Company:
Status:
Status date:
Operation Class:
Number of shops:
Number of plants:
Latitude:
Longitude:

Relative:
Lower

US MINES:
Mine ID:
SIC code(s):
Entity name:
Company:
Status:
Status date:
Operation Class:
Number of shops:
Number of plants:
Latitude:
Longitude:

Relative:
Lower
Actual:
1607 ft.

US MINES

1011167207
N/A

US MINES

1011167195
N/A

US MINES

1016483547
N/A

Site 1 of 3 in cluster B

A & T AUGERING INC

B8
WSW
1/4-1/2
0.273 mi.
1443 ft.

EDR ID Number
EPA ID Number

LETCHER (County), KY

B7
WSW
1/4-1/2
0.273 mi.
1442 ft.

Actual:
1607 ft.

Database(s)

1516550
122200 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
BLUEGRASS #1
BLUE GRASS AUGERS INC
D
19891102
Coal Mining
0
0
37 08 16
082 42 29

LETCHER (County), KY
Site 2 of 3 in cluster B
1516538
122200 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
NO 1 AUGER
A & T AUGERING INC
D
19930512
Coal Mining
0
0
37 08 16
082 42 29

FREEMAN FUELS OF KY INC
LETCHER (County), KY
Site 3 of 3 in cluster B
US MINES:
Mine ID:
SIC code(s):
Entity name:
Company:
Status:
Status date:
Operation Class:
Number of shops:
Number of plants:
Latitude:
Longitude:

1516496
122200 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
NO 2 STRIP AND AUGER
FREEMAN FUELS OF KY INC
D
19910123
Coal Mining
0
0
37 08 16
082 42 29

TC4327237.23s Page 10

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation

9
SE
1/4-1/2
0.372 mi.
1965 ft.
Relative:
Higher
Actual:
2813 ft.

MAP FINDINGS

Site

Database(s)

PHILLIPS CREEK COAL COMPANY

US MINES

EDR ID Number
EPA ID Number

1011237978
N/A

WISE (County), VA

US MINES:
Mine ID:
SIC code(s):
Entity name:
Company:
Status:
Status date:
Operation Class:
Number of shops:
Number of plants:
Latitude:
Longitude:

4405157
122200 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
NO 1
PHILLIPS CREEK COAL COMPANY
D
19811218
Coal Mining
0
0
37 07 45
082 41 09

TC4327237.23s Page 11

Count: 3 records.

ORPHAN SUMMARY

City

EDR ID

Site Name

Site Address

Zip

Database(s)

ERMINE
PAYNE GAP
WHITESBURG

S106987675
S106855020
S109843222

DOT
PARCEL 127 DOT
US 119 - LETCHER CO

US 119
US 23 AT HWY 119
US 119

41858
41537
41858

KY SB193
KY SB193
KY SWF/LF

TC4327237.23s Page 12

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Number of Days to Update: Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days
from the date the government agency made the information available to the public.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL: National Priority List
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA’s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version: 12/16/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 32

Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

NPL Site Boundaries
Sources:
EPA’s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: 202-564-7333
EPA Region 1
Telephone 617-918-1143

EPA Region 6
Telephone: 214-655-6659

EPA Region 3
Telephone 215-814-5418

EPA Region 7
Telephone: 913-551-7247

EPA Region 4
Telephone 404-562-8033

EPA Region 8
Telephone: 303-312-6774

EPA Region 5
Telephone 312-886-6686

EPA Region 9
Telephone: 415-947-4246

EPA Region 10
Telephone 206-553-8665
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule
in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments, and places on
the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing.
Date of Government Version: 12/16/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 32

Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority
to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner
received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994
Number of Days to Update: 56

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-564-4267
Last EDR Contact: 08/15/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/28/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-1

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal Delisted NPL site list
DELISTED NPL: National Priority List Deletions
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Date of Government Version: 12/16/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 32

Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

Federal CERCLIS list
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CERCLIS contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities,
private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA). CERCLIS contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities
List (NPL) and sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 10/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/11/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/13/2014
Number of Days to Update: 94

Source: EPA
Telephone: 703-412-9810
Last EDR Contact: 05/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/07/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

FEDERAL FACILITY: Federal Facility Site Information listing
A listing of National Priority List (NPL) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites found in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Database where EPA Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse Office is involved in cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: 03/26/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 64

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 703-603-8704
Last EDR Contact: 04/08/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List
CERCLIS-NFRAP: CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status
indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined
no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates
this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time.
This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that,
based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site.
Date of Government Version: 10/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/11/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/13/2014
Number of Days to Update: 94

Source: EPA
Telephone: 703-412-9810
Last EDR Contact: 05/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/07/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-2

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 03/10/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 72

Source: EPA
Telephone: 800-424-9346
Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF: RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that
move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the
waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version: 03/10/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 72

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: (404) 562-8651
Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG: RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate
over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 03/10/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 72

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: (404) 562-8651
Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

RCRA-SQG: RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate
between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 03/10/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 72

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: (404) 562-8651
Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

RCRA-CESQG: RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 03/10/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 72

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: (404) 562-8651
Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-3

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List
A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building
foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental
media or effect human health.
Date of Government Version: 03/16/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 77

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 703-603-0695
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls
A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures,
such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation
care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally
required as part of the institutional controls.
Date of Government Version: 03/16/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 77

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 703-603-0695
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System
LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure
properties.
Date of Government Version: 05/28/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 13

Source: Department of the Navy
Telephone: 843-820-7326
Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/31/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

Federal ERNS list
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 03/30/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 63

Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Telephone: 202-267-2180
Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
KY SHWS: State Leads List
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states’ equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 03/25/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/27/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 7

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-4

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
VA SHWS: This state does not maintain a SHWS list. See the Federal CERCLIS list and Federal NPL list.
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states’ equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: 0

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4236
Last EDR Contact: 03/23/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2015
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
KY SWF/LF: Solid Waste Facilities List
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version: 06/11/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/13/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/23/2014
Number of Days to Update: 40

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

VA SWF/LF: Solid Waste Management Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version: 04/17/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/20/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/24/2015
Number of Days to Update: 4

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4238
Last EDR Contact: 06/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/21/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
KY SB193: SB193 Branch Site Inventory List
The inventory indicates facilities that have performed permanent closure activities at a regulated underground
storage tank facility and have known soil and/or groundwater contamination.
Date of Government Version: 09/05/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/13/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/18/2006
Number of Days to Update: 35

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-5981
Last EDR Contact: 04/09/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

KY PSTEAF: Facility Ranking List
The Underground Storage Tank Branch (USTB) has ranked all PSTEAF reimbursable facilities requiring corrective
action, in accordance with 401 KAR 42:290. Directive letters will be issued on the basis of facility ranking and
available PSTEAF funding in sequential order as ranked. For example, Rank 2 facilities will be issued directives
before Rank 3 facilities.
Date of Government Version: 03/01/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/15/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/30/2015
Number of Days to Update: 15

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-5981
Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-5

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN LUST R5: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Leaking underground storage tanks located on Indian Land in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version: 01/30/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/05/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 32

Source: EPA, Region 5
Telephone: 312-886-7439
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Date of Government Version: 02/03/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/12/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 29

Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: 206-553-2857
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada
Date of Government Version: 01/08/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 32

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 415-972-3372
Last EDR Contact: 01/08/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/11/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Date of Government Version: 01/28/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/30/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 42

Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: 303-312-6271
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska
Date of Government Version: 09/23/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/25/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 65

Source: EPA Region 7
Telephone: 913-551-7003
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Date of Government Version: 01/23/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/10/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 31

Source: EPA Region 6
Telephone: 214-665-6597
Last EDR Contact: 01/26/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/11/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/01/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/01/2013
Number of Days to Update: 184

Source: EPA Region 1
Telephone: 617-918-1313
Last EDR Contact: 04/03/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-6

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 10

Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: 404-562-8677
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

State and tribal registered storage tank lists
KY UST: Underground Storage Tank Database
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST’s are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
Date of Government Version: 02/04/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/04/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 7

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-5981
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

VA UST: Registered Petroleum Storage Tanks
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST’s are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
Date of Government Version: 02/02/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/05/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/20/2015
Number of Days to Update: 15

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4010
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 5 (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 01/30/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/05/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 36

Source: EPA Region 5
Telephone: 312-886-6136
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 12/14/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/13/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 28

Source: EPA Region 9
Telephone: 415-972-3368
Last EDR Contact: 01/26/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/11/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and ten Tribal
Nations).
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/01/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/27/2014
Number of Days to Update: 271

Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: 617-918-1313
Last EDR Contact: 04/28/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-7

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
and Tribal Nations)
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 10

Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: 404-562-9424
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and 9 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 09/23/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/25/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 65

Source: EPA Region 7
Telephone: 913-551-7003
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 01/29/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/30/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 42

Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: 303-312-6137
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 02/03/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/12/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 29

Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: 206-553-2857
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 6 (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas and 65 Tribes).
Date of Government Version: 01/23/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/13/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 28

Source: EPA Region 6
Telephone: 214-665-7591
Last EDR Contact: 01/26/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/11/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

FEMA UST: Underground Storage Tank Listing
A listing of all FEMA owned underground storage tanks.
Date of Government Version: 01/01/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/16/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2010
Number of Days to Update: 55

Source: FEMA
Telephone: 202-646-5797
Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-8

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
KY ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Site Listing
A listing of sites that use engineering controls.
Date of Government Version: 03/25/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/27/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 7

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites Listing
A listing of sites with Engineering Controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building
foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental
media or effect human health.
Date of Government Version: 04/02/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/14/2015
Number of Days to Update: 7

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4228
Last EDR Contact: 09/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

KY INST CONTROL: State Superfund Database
A list of closed sites in the State Superfund Database. Institutional controls would be in place at any site that
uses Contained or Managed as a Closure Option.
Date of Government Version: 03/25/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/27/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 7

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA INST CONTROL: Voluntary Remediation Program Database
Sites included in the Voluntary Remediation Program database that have deed restrictions.
Date of Government Version: 04/02/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/14/2015
Number of Days to Update: 7

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4228
Last EDR Contact: 09/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
KY VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Program Sites
Sites that have been accepted into the Voluntary Cleanup Program or have submitted an application.
Date of Government Version: 03/25/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/27/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 7

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA VRP: Voluntary Remediation Program
The Voluntary Cleanup Program encourages owners of elected contaminated sites to take the initiative and conduct
voluntary cleanups that meet state environmental standards.
Date of Government Version: 04/02/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/14/2015
Number of Days to Update: 7

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4228
Last EDR Contact: 09/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-9

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 1.
Date of Government Version: 09/29/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/01/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/06/2014
Number of Days to Update: 36

Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: 617-918-1102
Last EDR Contact: 04/02/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Lisitng
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 7.
Date of Government Version: 03/20/2008
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008
Number of Days to Update: 27

Source: EPA, Region 7
Telephone: 913-551-7365
Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009
Data Release Frequency: Varies

State and tribal Brownfields sites
VA BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Site Specific Assessments
To qualify for Brownfields Assessment, the site must meet the Federal definition of a Brownfields and should have
contaminant issues that need to be addressed and a redevelopment plan supported by the local government and community.
Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality performs brownfields assessments under a cooperative agreement
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at no cost to communities, property owners or, prospective purchasers.
The assessment is an evaluation of environmental impacts caused by previous site uses similar to a Phase II Environmental
Assessment.
Date of Government Version: 04/29/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/30/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 33

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4207
Last EDR Contact: 04/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

KY BROWNFIELDS: Kentucky Brownfield Inventory
The Kentucky Brownfield Program has created an inventory of brownfield sites in order to market the properties
to those interested in brownfield redevelopment. The Kentucky Brownfield Program is working to promote the redevelopment
of these sites by helping to remove barriers that prevent reuse, providing useful information to communities,
developers and the public and encouraging a climate that fosters redevelopment of contaminated sites.
Date of Government Version: 05/05/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 26

Source: Division of Compliance Assistance
Telephone: 502-564-0323
Last EDR Contact: 04/16/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence
or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these
properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment.
Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) stores information reported by EPA Brownfields
grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or cleaned up with grant funding as well as information on
Targeted Brownfields Assessments performed by EPA Regions. A listing of ACRES Brownfield sites is obtained from
Cleanups in My Community. Cleanups in My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information
is reported back to EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs.

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-10

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 03/23/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/24/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 70

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-566-2777
Last EDR Contact: 03/24/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
ODI: Open Dump Inventory
An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258
Subtitle D Criteria.
Date of Government Version: 06/30/1985
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2004
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/17/2004
Number of Days to Update: 39

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 800-424-9346
Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

DEBRIS REGION 9: Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
A listing of illegal dump sites location on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in eastern Riverside
County and northern Imperial County, California.
Date of Government Version: 01/12/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/21/2009
Number of Days to Update: 137

Source: EPA, Region 9
Telephone: 415-947-4219
Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

KY HIST LF: Historical Landfills
This solid waste facility listing contains detail information that is not included in the landfill listing. A
listing with detail information is no longer available by the Department of Environmental Protection.
Date of Government Version: 05/01/2003
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/30/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/01/2006
Number of Days to Update: 32

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 02/23/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/25/2009
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

KY SWRCY: Recycling Facilities
A listing of recycling facilities located in the state of Kentucky.
Date of Government Version: 04/07/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/25/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2014
Number of Days to Update: 17

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 04/23/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

INDIAN ODI: Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
Location of open dumps on Indian land.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/03/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/24/2008
Number of Days to Update: 52

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 703-308-8245
Last EDR Contact: 05/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this
web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported
they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites.
In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example,
contacting local law enforcement and local health departments.

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-11

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 02/25/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2015
Number of Days to Update: 15

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Telephone: 202-307-1000
Last EDR Contact: 05/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

KY CDL: Clandestine Drub Lab Location Listing
Clandestine drug lab site locations.
Date of Government Version: 03/24/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/26/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/03/2015
Number of Days to Update: 8

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

US HIST CDL: National Clandestine Laboratory Register
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this
web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported
they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites.
In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example,
contacting local law enforcement and local health departments.
Date of Government Version: 02/25/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2015
Number of Days to Update: 15

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Telephone: 202-307-1000
Last EDR Contact: 05/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

Local Land Records
LIENS 2: CERCLA Lien Information
A Federal CERCLA (’Superfund’) lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent
Superfund monies. These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination.
CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties.
Date of Government Version: 02/18/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/18/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/24/2014
Number of Days to Update: 37

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-564-6023
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 03/30/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 72

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: 202-366-4555
Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

KY SPILLS: State spills
A listing of spill and/or release related incidents.
Date of Government Version: 05/05/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/15/2015
Number of Days to Update: 39

Source: DEP, Emergency Response
Telephone: 502-564-2380
Last EDR Contact: 04/16/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-12

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
VA SPILLS WC: Prep Database
The Department of Environmental Quality’s POLLUTION RESPONSE PROGRAM, known as PREP, provides for responses to
air, water, and waste pollution incidents in order to protect human health and the environment.
Date of Government Version: 09/21/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/30/2009
Number of Days to Update: 31

Source: Department of Environmental Quality, West Central Region
Telephone: 540-562-6700
Last EDR Contact: 09/06/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/19/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

VA SPILLS: Prep/Spills Database Listing
The Department of Environmental Quality’s POLLUTION RESPONSE PROGRAM, known as PREP, provides for responses to
air, water, and waste pollution incidents in order to protect human health and the environment. PREP staff often
work to assist local emergency responders, other state agencies, federal agencies, and responsible parties, as
may be needed, to manage pollution incidents. Oil spills, fish kills, and hazardous materials spills are examples
of incidents that may involve the DEQ’s PREP Program.
Date of Government Version: 02/03/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/05/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/20/2015
Number of Days to Update: 15

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4287
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA SPILLS BRL: Prep/Spills Database Listing
A listing of spills locations located in the Blue Ridge Regional area, Lynchburg.
Date of Government Version: 09/18/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/18/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2009
Number of Days to Update: 18

Source: DEQ, Blue Ridge Regional Office
Telephone: 434-582-6218
Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2012
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA SPILLS PC: Pollution Complaint Database
Pollution Complaints Database. The pollution reports contained in the PC database include the initial release
reporting of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks and all other releases of petroleum to the environment as well
as releases to state waters. The database is current through 12/1/93. Since that time, all spill and pollution
reporting information has been collected and tracked through the DEQ regional offices.
Date of Government Version: 06/01/1996
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/22/1996
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/1996
Number of Days to Update: 30

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4287
Last EDR Contact: 03/08/2010
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/21/2010
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

VA SPILLS NO: PREP Database
The Department of Environmental Quality’s POLLUTION RESPONSE PROGRAM, known as PREP, provides for responses to
air, water, and waste pollution incidents in order to protect human health and the environment.
Date of Government Version: 09/23/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/30/2009
Number of Days to Update: 31

Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Northern Region
Telephone: 703-583-3864
Last EDR Contact: 09/06/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/19/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

VA SPILLS PD: PREP Database
The Department of Environmental Quality’s POLLUTION RESPONSE PROGRAM, known as PREP, provides for responses to
air, water, and waste pollution incidents in order to protect human health and the environment.
Date of Government Version: 10/20/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/29/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/03/2009
Number of Days to Update: 35

Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Piedmont Region
Telephone: 804-527-5020
Last EDR Contact: 02/06/2012
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 05/21/2012
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-13

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
VA SPILLS SW: Reportable Spills
The Department of Environmental Quality’s POLLUTION RESPONSE PROGRAM, known as PREP, provides for responses to
air, water, and waste pollution incidents in order to protect human health and the environment.
Date of Government Version: 01/21/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/22/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/16/2010
Number of Days to Update: 25

Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Southwest Region
Telephone: 276-676-4839
Last EDR Contact: 07/13/2012
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/29/2012
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

VA SPILLS TD: PREP Database
The Department of Environmental Quality’s POLLUTION RESPONSE PROGRAM, known as PREP, provides for responses to
air, water, and waste pollution incidents in order to protect human health and the environment.
Date of Government Version: 09/17/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/23/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2009
Number of Days to Update: 13

Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Tidewater Region
Telephone: trofoia@deq.vir
Last EDR Contact: 09/06/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/19/2011
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

VA SPILLS VA: PREP Database
The Department of Environmental Quality’s POLLUTION RESPONSE PROGRAM, known as PREP, provides for responses to
air, water, and waste pollution incidents in order to protect human health and the environment.
Date of Government Version: 08/08/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/05/2012
Number of Days to Update: 57

Source: Department of Environmental Quality, Valley Regional Office
Telephone: 540-574-7800
Last EDR Contact: 05/06/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/19/2013
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR: RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous
waste.
Date of Government Version: 03/10/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/31/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 72

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: (404) 562-8651
Last EDR Contact: 03/31/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

DOT OPS: Incident and Accident Data
Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data.
Date of Government Version: 07/31/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2012
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012
Number of Days to Update: 42

Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety
Telephone: 202-366-4595
Last EDR Contact: 05/05/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

DOD: Department of Defense Sites
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 62

Source: USGS
Telephone: 888-275-8747
Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-14

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites
The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers
is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions.
Date of Government Version: 06/06/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/10/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2014
Number of Days to Update: 8

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Telephone: 202-528-4285
Last EDR Contact: 06/12/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/21/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released
periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/17/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 46

Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library
Telephone: Varies
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

ROD: Records Of Decision
Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical
and health information to aid in the cleanup.
Date of Government Version: 11/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/12/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/24/2014
Number of Days to Update: 74

Source: EPA
Telephone: 703-416-0223
Last EDR Contact: 06/12/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/21/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills
shut down, large piles of the sand-like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from
the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings
were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized.
Date of Government Version: 09/14/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/07/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 146

Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: 505-845-0011
Last EDR Contact: 05/26/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/07/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

US MINES: Mines Master Index File
Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes
violation information.
Date of Government Version: 12/30/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/31/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 29

Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Telephone: 303-231-5959
Last EDR Contact: 06/03/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/12/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 110

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-566-0250
Last EDR Contact: 01/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 06/08/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-15

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/15/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 14

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-260-5521
Last EDR Contact: 03/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/06/2015
Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years

FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009
Number of Days to Update: 25

Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Telephone: 202-566-1667
Last EDR Contact: 05/20/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/07/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) inspections and enforcements.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009
Number of Days to Update: 25

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-566-1667
Last EDR Contact: 05/20/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/07/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
A complete administrative case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The
information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA
(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions
are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters
with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included
in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007
Number of Days to Update: 40

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-564-2501
Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2007
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

HIST FTTS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Inspection & Enforcement Case Listing
A complete inspection and enforcement case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA
regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation
of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some
EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing
EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that
may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007
Number of Days to Update: 40

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-564-2501
Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2008
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-16

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all
registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices
being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/10/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/25/2011
Number of Days to Update: 77

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-564-4203
Last EDR Contact: 04/10/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System
The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement
and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
Date of Government Version: 01/23/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 31

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-564-5088
Last EDR Contact: 04/09/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

PADS: PCB Activity Database System
PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB’s who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.
Date of Government Version: 07/01/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/15/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/17/2014
Number of Days to Update: 33

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-566-0500
Last EDR Contact: 04/17/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 03/31/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/09/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 63

Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Telephone: 301-415-7169
Last EDR Contact: 06/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/21/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

RADINFO: Radiation Information Database
The Radiation Information Database (RADINFO) contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for radiation and radioactivity.
Date of Government Version: 04/07/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/09/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 63

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-343-9775
Last EDR Contact: 04/09/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and ’pointers’ to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-17

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 01/18/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/27/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2015
Number of Days to Update: 26

Source: EPA
Telephone: (404) 562-9900
Last EDR Contact: 06/10/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/21/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
Date of Government Version: 04/17/1995
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/07/1995
Number of Days to Update: 35

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-564-4104
Last EDR Contact: 06/02/2008
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/01/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

RMP: Risk Management Plans
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance
for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program
Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing
industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances
to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects
of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative
accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee
training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures
and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/13/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2015
Number of Days to Update: 40

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-564-8600
Last EDR Contact: 04/27/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

BRS: Biennial Reporting System
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/26/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/19/2013
Number of Days to Update: 52

Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: 800-424-9346
Last EDR Contact: 05/29/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/07/2015
Data Release Frequency: Biennially

KY UIC: UIC Information
A listing of wells identified as underground injection wells, in the Kentucky Oil & Gas Wells data base.
Date of Government Version: 04/16/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/20/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/30/2015
Number of Days to Update: 10

Source: Kentucky Geological Survey
Telephone: 859-323-0544
Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

VA UIC: Underground Injection Control Wells
A listing of underground injection controls wells.

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-18

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 05/04/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/06/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 27

Source: Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
Telephone: 276-415-9700
Last EDR Contact: 05/06/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

KY DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaner Listing
A listing of drycleaner facility locations.
Date of Government Version: 11/26/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/01/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/29/2014
Number of Days to Update: 28

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-573-3382
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaner List
A listing of registered drycleaners.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/23/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/24/2015
Number of Days to Update: 1

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4407
Last EDR Contact: 04/13/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

KY NPDES: Permitted Facility Listing
A listing of permitted wastewater facilities.
Date of Government Version: 03/03/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/05/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 6

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-3410
Last EDR Contact: 05/12/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/24/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA CEDS: Comprehensive Environmental Data System
Virginia Water Protection Permits, Virginia Pollution Discharge System (point discharge) permits and Virginia
Pollution Abatement (no point discharge) permits.
Date of Government Version: 03/09/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/24/2015
Number of Days to Update: 45

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4077
Last EDR Contact: 06/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/21/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

KY AIRS: Permitted Airs Facility Listing
A listing of permitted Airs facilities.
Date of Government Version: 03/02/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/11/2015
Number of Days to Update: 8

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-573-3382
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA AIRS: Permitted Airs Facility List
A listing of permitted Airs facilities.
Date of Government Version: 03/05/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/06/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/20/2015
Number of Days to Update: 14

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4000
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/14/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-19

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
KY LEAD: Environmental Lead Program Report Tracking Database
Lead Report Tracking Database
Date of Government Version: 08/31/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/05/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/29/2014
Number of Days to Update: 24

Source: Department of Public Health
Telephone: 502-564-4537
Last EDR Contact: 05/08/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/24/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations
This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater
than 640 acres.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/08/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 34

Source: USGS
Telephone: 202-208-3710
Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually

SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. EPA Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. It is comprised of representatives of states with established
drycleaner remediation programs. Currently the member states are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version: 03/07/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/09/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/02/2011
Number of Days to Update: 54

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 615-532-8599
Last EDR Contact: 05/21/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/31/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

KY Financial Assurance 1: Financial Assurance Information Listing
A listing of financial assurance information.
Date of Government Version: 04/08/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 4

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

KY Financial Assurance 2: Financial Assurance Information Listing
Financial Assurance information for underground storage tank facilities. Financial assurance is intended to ensure
that resources are available to pay for the cost of closure, post-closure care, and corrective measures if the
owner or operator of a regulated facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 05/14/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/06/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/24/2014
Number of Days to Update: 18

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-5981
Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

KY COAL ASH: Coal Ash Disposal Sites
A listing of coal ash pond site locations.
Date of Government Version: 12/09/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/01/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/07/2014
Number of Days to Update: 67

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-20

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
KY Financial Assurance 3: Financial Assurance Information Listing
A listing of financial assurance information for solid waste facilities. Financial assurance is intended to ensure
that resources are available to pay for the cost of closure, post-closure care, and corrective measures if the
owner or operator of a regulated facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 05/28/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 4

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 502-564-6716
Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

US AIRS (AFS): Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS)
The database is a sub-system of Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). AFS contains compliance data
on air pollution point sources regulated by the U.S. EPA and/or state and local air regulatory agencies. This
information comes from source reports by various stationary sources of air pollution, such as electric power plants,
steel mills, factories, and universities, and provides information about the air pollutants they produce. Action,
air program, air program pollutant, and general level plant data. It is used to track emissions and compliance
data from industrial plants.
Date of Government Version: 10/16/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/31/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/17/2014
Number of Days to Update: 17

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-564-2496
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

PCB TRANSFORMER: PCB Transformer Registration Database
The database of PCB transformer registrations that includes all PCB registration submittals.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/19/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2012
Number of Days to Update: 83

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-566-0517
Last EDR Contact: 05/01/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/10/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA Financial Assurance 2: Financial Assurance Information listing
Solid waste financial assurance information.
Date of Government Version: 05/02/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/02/2015
Number of Days to Update: 25

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4123
Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

COAL ASH DOE: Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
A listing of power plants that store ash in surface ponds.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/22/2009
Number of Days to Update: 76

Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: 202-586-8719
Last EDR Contact: 04/15/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

EPA WATCH LIST: EPA WATCH LIST
EPA maintains a "Watch List" to facilitate dialogue between EPA, state and local environmental agencies on enforcement
matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority. Being
on the Watch List does not mean that the facility has actually violated the law only that an investigation by
EPA or a state or local environmental agency has led those organizations to allege that an unproven violation
has in fact occurred. Being on the Watch List does not represent a higher level of concern regarding the alleged
violations that were detected, but instead indicates cases requiring additional dialogue between EPA, state and
local agencies - primarily because of the length of time the alleged violation has gone unaddressed or unresolved.

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-21

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 08/30/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/17/2014
Number of Days to Update: 88

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 617-520-3000
Last EDR Contact: 05/07/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/24/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

LEAD SMELTER 1: Lead Smelter Sites
A listing of former lead smelter site locations.
Date of Government Version: 11/25/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/26/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 64

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 703-603-8787
Last EDR Contact: 04/10/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

LEAD SMELTER 2: Lead Smelter Sites
A list of several hundred sites in the U.S. where secondary lead smelting was done from 1931and 1964. These sites
may pose a threat to public health through ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2001
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010
Number of Days to Update: 36

Source: American Journal of Public Health
Telephone: 703-305-6451
Last EDR Contact: 12/02/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties
A listing of verified Potentially Responsible Parties
Date of Government Version: 10/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/17/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014
Number of Days to Update: 3

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-564-6023
Last EDR Contact: 05/14/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/24/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

2020 COR ACTION: 2020 Corrective Action Program List
The EPA has set ambitious goals for the RCRA Corrective Action program by creating the 2020 Corrective Action
Universe. This RCRA cleanup baseline includes facilities expected to need corrective action. The 2020 universe
contains a wide variety of sites. Some properties are heavily contaminated while others were contaminated but
have since been cleaned up. Still others have not been fully investigated yet, and may require little or no remediation.
Inclusion in the 2020 Universe does not necessarily imply failure on the part of a facility to meet its RCRA obligations.
Date of Government Version: 04/22/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 6

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 703-308-4044
Last EDR Contact: 05/14/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/24/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

US FIN ASSUR: Financial Assurance Information
All owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to provide
proof that they will have sufficient funds to pay for the clean up, closure, and post-closure care of their facilities.
Date of Government Version: 03/09/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/10/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/25/2015
Number of Days to Update: 15

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: 202-566-1917
Last EDR Contact: 05/14/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/31/2015
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly

FEDLAND: Federal and Indian Lands
Federally and Indian administrated lands of the United States. Lands included are administrated by: Army Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Wild and Scenic River, National Wildlife Refuge, Public Domain Land,
Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Wildlife Management Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of Justice, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service.

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-22

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 339

Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Telephone: 888-275-8747
Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: N/A

VA Financial Assurance 1: Financial Assurance Information Listing
A listing of financial assurance information for underground storage tank facilities. Financial assurance is intended
to ensure that resources are available to pay for the cost of closure, post-closure care, and corrective measures
if the owner or operator of a regulated facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 02/12/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/13/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/25/2015
Number of Days to Update: 12

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: 804-698-4205
Last EDR Contact: 05/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

US AIRS MINOR: Air Facility System Data
A listing of minor source facilities.
Date of Government Version: 10/16/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/31/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/17/2014
Number of Days to Update: 17

Source: EPA
Telephone: 202-564-2496
Last EDR Contact: 03/30/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/13/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

VA COAL ASH: Coal Ash Disposal Sites
A listing of facilities with coal ash impoundments.
Date of Government Version: 07/29/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/31/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/21/2009
Number of Days to Update: 21

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 804-698-4285
Last EDR Contact: 06/04/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/21/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
A listing of coal combustion residues surface impoundments with high hazard potential ratings.
Date of Government Version: 07/01/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/10/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014
Number of Days to Update: 40

Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/12/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/21/2015
Data Release Frequency: Varies

EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants)
compiled by EDR’s researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800’s to 1950’s
to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture
of coal, oil, and water that also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production,
such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds
are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently
disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil
and groundwater contamination.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A

Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-23

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EDR US Hist Auto Stat: EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR’s review was limited
to those categories of sources that might, in EDR’s opinion, include gas station/filling station/service station
establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station,
filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc. This database falls within
a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR’s HRHR effort presents
unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns,
but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A

Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies

EDR US Hist Cleaners: EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR’s review was limited to those categories of sources
that might, in EDR’s opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were
not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. This database falls
within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR’s HRHR effort
presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental
concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A

Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies

EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
KY RGA HWS: Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste database provides a list of SHWS incidents derived
from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/03/2014
Number of Days to Update: 186

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies

KY RGA LF: Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Landfill database provides a list of landfills derived from historical databases
and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/15/2014
Number of Days to Update: 198

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies

VA RGA LF: Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Landfill database provides a list of landfills derived from historical databases
and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled from Records formerly available
from the Department of Environmental Quality in Virgina.

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-24

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/20/2014
Number of Days to Update: 203

Source: Department of Environmental Quality
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies

OTHER DATABASE(S)
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through
transporters to a tsd facility.
Date of Government Version: 07/30/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/19/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/03/2013
Number of Days to Update: 45

Source: Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
Telephone: 860-424-3375
Last EDR Contact: 05/18/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/31/2015
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned

NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 30

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/27/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data
Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD
facility.
Date of Government Version: 05/01/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/06/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/20/2015
Number of Days to Update: 14

Source: Department of Environmental Conservation
Telephone: 518-402-8651
Last EDR Contact: 05/06/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/17/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/21/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/25/2014
Number of Days to Update: 35

Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Telephone: 717-783-8990
Last EDR Contact: 04/16/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/03/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

RI MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/15/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/13/2014
Number of Days to Update: 29

Source: Department of Environmental Management
Telephone: 401-222-2797
Last EDR Contact: 05/26/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/07/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-25

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/19/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2015
Number of Days to Update: 19

Source: Department of Natural Resources
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 06/11/2015
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/28/2015
Data Release Frequency: Annually

Oil/Gas Pipelines: This data was obtained by EDR from the USGS in 1994. It is referred to by USGS as GeoData Digital Line Graphs
from 1:100,000-Scale Maps. It was extracted from the transportation category including some oil, but primarily
gas pipelines.
Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity
to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all
sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers,
and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.
AHA Hospitals:
Source: American Hospital Association, Inc.
Telephone: 312-280-5991
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association’s annual survey of hospitals.
Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Telephone: 410-786-3000
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services,
a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Nursing Homes
Source: National Institutes of Health
Telephone: 301-594-6248
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.
Public Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: 202-502-7300
The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on elementary
and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical
database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are
comparable across all states.
Private Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: 202-502-7300
The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on private school locations in the United States.
Daycare Centers: Certified Child Care Homes
Source: Cabinet for Families & Children
Telephone: 502-564-7130

Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2011 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetland Polygon Features
Source: Environmental Protection & Public Protection Cabinet
Telephone: 502-564-5174

Scanned Digital USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map (DRG)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The map images
are made by scanning published paper maps on high-resolution scanners. The raster image
is georeferenced and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection.

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-26

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING

STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2010 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.

TC4327237.23s

Page GR-27

GEOCHECK ®- PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM

TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS

PAYNES GAP
199 COUNTY ROAD 1417
MAYKING, KY 41837
TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES

Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator:
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:

37.1421 - 37˚ 8’ 31.56’’
82.6972 - 82˚ 41’ 49.92’’
Zone 17
349261.6
4111780.8
1849 ft. above sea level

USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP

Target Property Map:
Most Recent Revision:

37082-B6 JENKINS WEST, KY VA
1992

EDR’s GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in
forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration.
Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principal investigative components:
1. Groundwater flow direction, and
2. Groundwater flow velocity.
Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics
of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the
geologic strata.

TC4327237.23s Page A-1

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION

Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other
sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data
collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers).

TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to
assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or,
should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY

General Topographic Gradient: General NW

Elevation (ft)

2851

North

2990

1861

1859

1849

1758

1610

1445

1348

1517

1683

1757

1590

1810

2091

2278

2532

2755

3003

SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES

South

1897

1919

1954

West

1757

1718

1768

1669

1747

1744

1849

1701

1529

1465

1479

1482

1661

1614

1589

1698

Elevation (ft)

TP

East
TP

✩

Target Property Elevation: 1849 ft.

0

1/2

1 Miles

Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated
on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified.

TC4327237.23s Page A-2

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION

Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist
the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.
Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways
and bodies of water).
FEMA FLOOD ZONE

FEMA Flood
Electronic Data
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map

Target Property County
LETCHER, KY
Flood Plain Panel at Target Property:

21133C - FEMA DFIRM Flood data

Additional Panels in search area:

51195C - FEMA DFIRM Flood data

NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY

NWI Electronic
Data Coverage
YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail Map

NWI Quad at Target Property
JENKINS WEST

HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION

Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator
of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the
environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should
contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted.

AQUIFLOW®
Search Radius: 1.000 Mile.
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory
authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined
hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table.
MAP ID
Not Reported

LOCATION
FROM TP

GENERAL DIRECTION
GROUNDWATER FLOW

TC4327237.23s Page A-3

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION

Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional
using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary
to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil
characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes
move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils.

GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY

Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed
at which contaminant migration may be occurring.
ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT

Era:
System:
Series:
Code:

GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION

Paleozoic
Category:
Pennsylvanian
Atokan and Morrowan Series
PP1 (decoded above as Era, System & Series)

Stratifed Sequence

Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology
of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman
Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).

TC4327237.23s Page A-4

2

2
1

4

3

1

3

2
2

2

0

EDR Inc.

1/16

1/8

1/4 Miles

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil
Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information
for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns
in a landscape. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data.

Soil Map ID: 1
Soil Component Name:

Dekalb

Soil Surface Texture:

channery sandy loam

Hydrologic Group:

Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.

Soil Drainage Class:

Well drained

Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Low
Depth to Bedrock Min:

> 64 inches

Depth to Watertable Min:

> 0 inches
Soil Layer Information

Boundary

Classification

Layer

Upper

Lower

Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group

1

0 inches

1 inches

channery sandy
loam

Silt-Clay
Materials (more
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.

2

1 inches

25 inches

very channery
sandy loam

Silt-Clay
Materials (more
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.

Unified Soil
FINE-GRAINED
SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), Lean Clay.
FINE-GRAINED
SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), silt.
FINE-GRAINED
SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), Lean Clay.
FINE-GRAINED
SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), silt.

Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity Soil Reaction
micro m/sec (pH)
Max: 141
Min: 42

Max: 5.5
Min: 3.6

Max: 141
Min: 42

Max: 5.5
Min: 3.6

TC4327237.23s Page A-6

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Layer

Upper

Lower

3

25 inches

29 inches

Classification
Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group
unweathered
bedrock

Not reported

Unified Soil
Not reported

Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity Soil Reaction
micro m/sec (pH)
Max:
Min:

Max: Min:

Soil Map ID: 2
Soil Component Name:

Kimper

Soil Surface Texture:

silt loam

Hydrologic Group:

Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.

Soil Drainage Class:

Well drained

Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Low
Depth to Bedrock Min:

> 0 inches

Depth to Watertable Min:

> 0 inches
Soil Layer Information

Boundary

Classification

Layer

Upper

Lower

Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group

1

0 inches

5 inches

silt loam

Silt-Clay
Materials (more
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.

2

5 inches

61 inches

silt loam

Silt-Clay
Materials (more
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.

Unified Soil
COARSE-GRAINED
SOILS, Sands,
Sands with fines,
Clayey sand.
COARSE-GRAINED
SOILS, Sands,
Sands with fines,
Silty Sand.
COARSE-GRAINED
SOILS, Sands,
Sands with fines,
Clayey sand.

Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity Soil Reaction
micro m/sec (pH)
Max: 14
Min: 4

Max: 7.3
Min: 5.1

Max: 14
Min: 4

Max: 6 Min:
4.5

TC4327237.23s Page A-7

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

Soil Layer Information
Boundary
Layer

Upper

Lower

3

61 inches

79 inches

Classification
Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group
very channery
loam

Silt-Clay
Materials (more
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.

Unified Soil
COARSE-GRAINED
SOILS, Sands,
Sands with fines,
Clayey sand.

Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity Soil Reaction
micro m/sec (pH)
Max: 14
Min: 4

Max: 6 Min:
4.5

Soil Map ID: 3
Soil Component Name:

Kaymine

Soil Surface Texture:

channery silt loam

Hydrologic Group:

Class C - Slow infiltration rates. Soils with layers impeding downward
movement of water, or soils with moderately fine or fine textures.

Soil Drainage Class:

Well drained

Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Low
Depth to Bedrock Min:

> 0 inches

Depth to Watertable Min:

> 0 inches
Soil Layer Information

Boundary

Classification

Layer

Upper

Lower

Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group

1

0 inches

14 inches

channery silt
loam

2

14 inches

79 inches

very channery
silt loam

Granular
materials (35
pct. or less
passing No.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.
Granular
materials (35
pct. or less
passing No.
200), Silty, or
Clayey Gravel
and Sand.

Unified Soil

Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity Soil Reaction
micro m/sec (pH)

COARSE-GRAINED
SOILS, Gravels,
Gravels with
fines, Clayey
Gravel

Max: 42
Min: 4

Max: 7.8
Min: 5.6

COARSE-GRAINED
SOILS, Gravels,
Gravels with
fines, Clayey
Gravel

Max: 42
Min: 4

Max: 7.8
Min: 5.6

TC4327237.23s Page A-8

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

Soil Map ID: 4
Soil Component Name:

Shelocta

Soil Surface Texture:

silt loam

Hydrologic Group:

Class B - Moderate infiltration rates. Deep and moderately deep,
moderately well and well drained soils with moderately coarse
textures.

Soil Drainage Class:

Well drained

Hydric Status: Not hydric
Corrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Low
Depth to Bedrock Min:

> 0 inches

Depth to Watertable Min:

> 0 inches
Soil Layer Information

Boundary

Classification

Layer

Upper

Lower

Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group

1

0 inches

3 inches

silt loam

Silt-Clay
Materials (more
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.

2

3 inches

27 inches

silt loam

3

27 inches

55 inches

very channery
silt loam

4

55 inches

66 inches

weathered
bedrock

Silt-Clay
Materials (more
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Silty
Soils.
Silt-Clay
Materials (more
than 35 pct.
passing No.
200), Clayey
Soils.
Not reported

Unified Soil

Saturated
hydraulic
conductivity Soil Reaction
micro m/sec (pH)

FINE-GRAINED
SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), Lean Clay.
FINE-GRAINED
SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), silt.
FINE-GRAINED
SOILS, Silts and
Clays (liquid
limit less than
50%), Lean Clay

Max: 14
Min: 4

Max: 6.5
Min: 4.5

Max: 14
Min: 4

Max: 5.5
Min: 4.5

COARSE-GRAINED
SOILS, Gravels,
Gravels with
fines, Clayey
Gravel

Max: 14
Min: 4

Max: 5.5
Min: 4.5

Not reported

Max:
Min:

Max: Min:

TC4327237.23s Page A-9

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS

EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental
professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an
opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells.
WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION
DATABASE

SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)

Federal USGS
Federal FRDS PWS
State Database

1.000
Nearest PWS within 1 mile
1.000

FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION
MAP ID
E21
G30

WELL ID

LOCATION
FROM TP

USGS40000380388
USGS40000380432

1/2 - 1 Mile NW
1/2 - 1 Mile NNW

FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION
MAP ID

WELL ID

LOCATION
FROM TP

No PWS System Found
Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location.

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
MAP ID

1
2
A3
B4
B5
C6
A7
C8
D9
D10
C11
12
13
14
D15
D16
E17
18
19

WELL ID

LOCATION
FROM TP

KY5000000025103
KY5000000025162
KY5000000024909
KY5000000024803
KY5000000024771
KY5000000025185
KY5000000024942
KY5000000025244
KY5000000025033
KY5000000024992
KY5000000025247
KY5000000025269
KY5000000025234
KY5000000025265
KY5000000025059
KY5000000025073
KY5000000025150
KY5000000024690
KY5000000024962

1/4 - 1/2 Mile North
1/4 - 1/2 Mile North
1/4 - 1/2 Mile WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile West
1/2 - 1 Mile West
1/2 - 1 Mile NNE
1/2 - 1 Mile WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile North
1/2 - 1 Mile WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile NNE
1/2 - 1 Mile North
1/2 - 1 Mile NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile NNE
1/2 - 1 Mile NW
1/2 - 1 Mile NW
1/2 - 1 Mile NW
1/2 - 1 Mile West
1/2 - 1 Mile WNW

TC4327237.23s Page A-10

GEOCHECK® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY

STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION
MAP ID

E20
E22
23
24
25
F26
F27
G28
G29
F31
32

WELL ID

LOCATION
FROM TP

KY5000000025187
KY5000000025186
KY5000000025317
KY5000000025466
KY5000000025178
KY5000000025430
KY5000000025467
KY5000000025486
KY5000000025487
KY5000000025485
KY5000000024560

1/2 - 1 Mile NW
1/2 - 1 Mile NW
1/2 - 1 Mile NW
1/2 - 1 Mile NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile NW
1/2 - 1 Mile NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile WSW

OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION

STATE OIL/GAS WELL INFORMATION
MAP ID
A1
A2
3
4
B5
B6
7
8
C9
C10
11
D12
D13

WELL ID

LOCATION
FROM TP

KYOG11000120393
KYOG11000120394
KYOG11000105654
KYOG11000105748
KYOG11000119988
KYOG11000119989
KYOG11000091067
KYOG11000012178
KYOG11000121034
KYOG11000121035
KYOG11000091066
KYOG11000121777
KYOG11000121778

1/8 - 1/4 Mile NNE
1/8 - 1/4 Mile NNE
1/4 - 1/2 Mile WNW
1/4 - 1/2 Mile SSW
1/4 - 1/2 Mile ENE
1/4 - 1/2 Mile ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile NE
1/2 - 1 Mile WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile NNE
1/2 - 1 Mile ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile ENE

TC4327237.23s Page A-11

60

80

16
1 60 0

1
11 1 6
1 87 7 6 62 084 00
0 00
1
8

7

1 96
0

2
2 54 4 0
2 6 0 20 0

2 6 4 0

40
27

6
7 28 0
0

2
7 20
6 8 0

8

880
1

2 6 8 0

2

2

2
032 2
0 3
6 0

4 00

60
25
20 0
5
2 4 8 40
2 4
2 4 00 0
2 36
2

2

0
32
2
0
22
22

0

2

2 6
2 5 60 0 0

4

2 2
2 82 0
24 0
2
2 010
2 61
2

8

2 5 6 0
2 60
2 6 0
4 0
2
7 6 0

8

1 7 6 0
1 8 0 0

18
00
1 16 64 00 0

1 8
2 00

1 81 8 1 8
8 04 0 0 0

2 2 7
8 02 0

00

3 0
2 9 2 90 0
20

1 5 2 0

18

00
48 15
0

6

1 5 2 0

19
2
0 4 2 06 0
0 00

80

40

30
3 0 4 0
00
2 9 6
0

1 6 0
0

1
5
52
1 50
6
16 0
1
14 0
6

14

1 71 6
6 80
0
1

840
1

40
1

24
2
4
6 5 2 80 0
00
2
22 8 7 6
3 02 29 92 8 8 40 00
40 2 0 8 0 0

3
04 800

2 9
2 8 2 0
8 4 08 0

11

1 8 8 0
2 0 2 0 0 0
8 0
22 0
0
111 9
89

8

1 800
68 1 7
0 60

1 6 4 0

1
11
1 13 464 4 4 8 0
00 0 0
80

15
21 05 1
6
1 46 0
1 1 6 0
1 6 86 04 0 0
1 6
8 0
19

4 00 60 0

22

1 5
6 0
1 6 4
0

48 0

18
1 9

40

1 52
0

1

4 00 0

11 44

1 5 6 0

1

55 24 8
6 00 0

1

16 1
40

5 5
1
64 20
0

6
3 20
0

1 6 8
0

1 6
4 0

1
13 3 2
1 24 0 0
0

11 4
44

17
20

1 7 60
1 800

8 60 0
0

60

7

1 5
2
1 3 1 4
60 00
1

1 61 06 40 0
16
80

1 41 44 08 0

1 7 2 0
1 8 0 0
1 880
1 800
1 6 40
1 6
1 7 2 80 0

5

1 9 6 0

80
24

KY

0
2 4 4

8 0
2 4

20

2 40
2

3

2

60

2 5 2 0

0

22

2 7
80
2 64 0
2 6

2

22 5
22 5 62 00
22 66 0 0
22 7 76 284 00
2
2 8 8 8 06 0 0
8 40 0 0

2 00
28

2
26 30
2 03 0
24 402 5 2 0

1

8

2

2
84
0
6
27 0

24

0
2 6 0 60
2 5

80

2 5 6 0

29
2 28 0
80
80

80

60
25 2
6
25
00

26
40

2
0
2 5 2 4 24 04 0 0 2 3
2

2 60
8
2 6 0
2 7 2

2

20
2 5 0

80

60
2 72
26
6 70 2 0 60 40
0

28
00

0
64

2 7 2 0

2

2
7
2 68 20
6 0
4
2 60
00

20
1 7

2
24

0
2 8
2 960

2 2

20
2 52 5 2

2 7 0
2 7 62 0
2 6 80

6 0
2 7

8

80

7 20

2

1 6 0
02
2 22 202 4222083 02
2 4 30 6 00
0
2 48
0

2

4 0

25
2 0

20
25

0
00

3 03

40
28

2 8 40

00
3 80 0
0
3

60
2 8 0 0

2 2 77 2
60
2 80

4

2 4 00

00

2

2
2
7 20

40
24
6 0
2 5 4 0
0 0 26 68 0
0
0 80
6
0
2
2
4
2 20
2 4 2
60 0 0
21
0 2 7 22 88 4 0
0
0
0
6
2 7 2
2
02 3
5
2 92
2
2
3
2 9 6 0
5 60
00 80 2
28 60
2
2
2
0
24 2
0
2 6
2 2
24 4
0
2 8 8
40
4 0
30
8
2
60
20
60
31
0
0 08 0
2 7
0
4
33 00 3
6
8 09 2 0
0
8
8
2
2
2
28
0
9 6

65 0
22 66 8

2 9 60

EDR Inc.

00

0 0 0
22 0 4 0

8 0
18
00
1 9 2 0
600 0
1 9 2 22

8

1 8 8 0
18 4 0
1 8 00 0
10 7 6
72

60

00 0
1 18 8 4 98 2
1

0
2 6 4
2 6 20 05 6 0

0 0
20

0
68 760
1
1 7 8 00
1
1 7 6 0

20

2

22 33 26 00

0
1 51 66 0 0

2 6 8 0

9 20
8 0

1 08
1 8 40
18 0

6 0
1 7

1
0

9
1
1 9 60

2 0 4 0

0
92 0
0
0
0
6 2 4 0 0 82 00 1 0 0
2 0 22 1 2 0 0
48
222 44 84 0
2 22 2 6 00 0
5 0
20
2 32 4
2 6 00
2 26 64 00 0
0
26 0 0
4 4 0
2 4 8 0
2 92 29 06
33 30 4 0 0
1 16 20 0
2 00

2 0 4 0
22 0 8 0 0
0 2 1 60 0
1
2 0
2
2 2 2 42 2 8 0
2 3 22 03 6 0

0
84

0 0
18
0
1 8 8

1

20

0

00
1 6

20 0
1 17 7 6

1 7 2 0

60

1 6 4 10
6 8 0

1 7 2
0
1

0
15 6

1 64 00 0
1 68 0
1 76 2 0
1
40
16

1 4

20
1 9

00 0
8

1
68
0
1 6 00

1 4
8 0
1 5 2 0
1 5 60

16

2 10

8
40
2
8 0
0

1 8 4 0
1 8 0 0

1

0
1 66 48 0
1

1
1 17 6
40
1 6

160

1
0

1 71 72 06 0

0

1 7
2

1 71 6
2
0

40
18

1 6 8 0

8 0 2 05 6 0
14151

0
1 86 0
17

1 8 4 0

20

1

15
1 24 0
80

0
6 0
7 08
7 21 6

6 40

8

1

1 15 526 006 0
0
1

80
0 0 00
1 61 15 5 6 2

60
17

00
1 6

16

20
1
17
00

1 5 6 0

1 4 4 0

1 6
1 6 0 0 4 0

1 4 0 0

1 4 4 0

40
14

20
0
15
0 40 4 40
4
1 0 1
1 4
0
1 4 8 02 0 0
1 114 55 6

0
1 36

1 3 6 0
1 4 4 05 112 44 08 00
1 1 5 06 0

148
0

1 56 20 0
1 50 0
1 6
1 6 6 8 40 0
1

16 0

1 5
6 0

1 56 1
1 16 64 0 00 4 8 0
0

1 6 0 0

1 8 40

40
18
00
16 08
1 7 80

6

1 7 60
1 7 2
0

1
111677826 00
6 0
1 6 04 0
0

1 6 0 0

17 6 0
1 6 18 60 4 0
6 0
1 5

0

1

60

5

1 6 0 1 5 2 0
0
1 680

1 4 8 0

1 3
20

80

40
16 56 0
1

1
11

0
36

00

80

1

0 0 20
16 17

52
0

0 0
41 44 0

8

2480

15

1

14

8 0 00
6

60
15

62 0
21 0 0
4 011 7 1 7 8 06 4
1 6 10 0
6
1
60
1 50
2
5
1

14

4

1

40

1 7 2 0

6

1 17 76
1 6 20 0
80

2920

0
1 6 8
1 06 0 0
6
52 0
11 5 8 0
1 44 0

1 6 8 0

40
0
1
1 65 02
15
4 0
16
0
60

1

1 6 0 0

00
20

16

14
00

1 76
0

00 00 0 8 0
1 8 1 1 72 16

14

81 0

60
1 7

0

40
18

0

80
1 6
04 00 80
8
11 8 1 8

4

20
1 5
0
60

0
608 0

1 9 20
0
1 8 0

1 2 80

0

60

0
1 5 1 6 4 2 0 1 71
1

11 77 62 00

1 5 6 0
1 4 48 40 0 0 0 3 6 0
1 1 4 1

1 5 2 0
1 5 6 0

1 6 0 0

3 12 30 6 0
08 0 0
52

1

40

11 8

0

0
6 68 40 0
1 4 8 00
1 4 60 0

20

1
80
14 4 4 0
41 0 0

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation

Database

1
North
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

KY WELLS

233568
37.14788
-82.69682
00045519
Domestic
KY5000000025103

Site type:
Constructi:

2
North
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Site type:
Constructi:

A3
WNW
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Site type:
Constructi:

B4
West
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

B5
West
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower

Site type:
Constructi:

KY5000000024909

Water Well
02-OCT-99

KY WELLS

233543
37.14205
-82.70627
00031622
Domestic
KY5000000024803

KY5000000025162

Water Well
08-APR-96

KY WELLS

312475
37.14399
-82.70593
00052568
Domestic
KY5000000024909

KY5000000025103

Water Well
13-JUL-96

KY WELLS

267492
37.14899
-82.69849
00043617
Domestic
KY5000000025162

EDR ID Number

KY5000000024803

Water Well
07-DEC-93

KY WELLS

KY5000000024771

TC4327237.23s Page A-13

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

312768
37.14149
-82.70627
00053932
Domestic
KY5000000024771

Site type:
Constructi:

C6
NNE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

KY WELLS

261962
37.14927
-82.69516
00057785
Domestic
KY5000000025185

Site type:
Constructi:

A7
WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

250096
37.1448
-82.70605
00054838
Domestic
KY5000000024942

Site type:
Constructi:

Site type:
Constructi:

D9
WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Site type:
Constructi:

KY5000000025244

Water Well
01-SEP-92

KY WELLS

312769
37.14649
-82.70577
00053933
Domestic
KY5000000025033

KY5000000024942

Water Well
01-JAN-00

KY WELLS

45002
37.15011
-82.69544
00029095
Domestic
KY5000000025244

KY5000000025185

Water Well
28-JAN-02

KY WELLS

C8
North
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Water Well
21-JUN-00

KY5000000025033

Water Well
24-JUN-00

TC4327237.23s Page A-14

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation

Database

D10
WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

KY WELLS

263455
37.14571
-82.70649
00057351
Domestic
KY5000000024992

Site type:
Constructi:

C11
NNE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Site type:
Constructi:

12
North
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Site type:
Constructi:

13
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

14
NNE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower

Site type:
Constructi:

KY5000000025269

Water Well
30-DEC-99

KY WELLS

250224
37.15011
-82.70043
00049773
Domestic
KY5000000025234

KY5000000025247

Water Well
15-JAN-87

KY WELLS

73348
37.15038
-82.69571
Not Reported
Domestic
KY5000000025269

KY5000000024992

Water Well
29-APR-02

KY WELLS

31560
37.15011
-82.69432
00004249
Domestic
KY5000000025247

EDR ID Number

KY5000000025234

Water Well
13-JUN-98

KY WELLS

KY5000000025265

TC4327237.23s Page A-15

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

312757
37.15032
-82.69421
00053908
Domestic
KY5000000025265

Site type:
Constructi:

D15
NW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

KY WELLS

250097
37.14699
-82.70621
00050539
Domestic
KY5000000025059

Site type:
Constructi:

D16
NW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

250098
37.14732
-82.70605
00050536
Domestic
KY5000000025073

Site type:
Constructi:

Site type:
Constructi:

18
West
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Site type:
Constructi:

KY5000000025150

Water Well
01-JAN-86

KY WELLS

249487
37.14038
-82.70849
00048573
Domestic
KY5000000024690

KY5000000025073

Water Well
01-MAY-73

KY WELLS

250349
37.14891
-82.70466
00050534
Domestic
KY5000000025150

KY5000000025059

Water Well
01-JAN-00

KY WELLS

E17
NW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Water Well
18-FEB-00

KY5000000024690

Water Well
19-SEP-97

TC4327237.23s Page A-16

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation

Database

19
WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

KY WELLS

61095
37.1452
-82.70818
Not Reported
Domestic
KY5000000024962

Site type:
Constructi:

KY WELLS

73347
37.14955
-82.70515
Not Reported
Domestic
KY5000000025187

Site type:
Constructi:

FED USGS

USGS-KY
USGS Kentucky Water Science Center
USGS-370858082421901
I29A0037
Well
Not Reported
05100201
Drainagearea value:
Not Reported
Contrib drainagearea:
Not Reported
Latitude:
-82.7051575
Sourcemap scale:
1
Horiz Acc measure units:
Interpolated from map
NAD83
Vert measure val:
feet
Vertacc measure val:
feet
Interpolated from topographic map
NGVD29
Countrycode:
Not Reported
Breathitt Formation
Not Reported
Not Reported
Welldepth:
ft
Wellholedepth:
ft

KY5000000025187

Water Well
30-DEC-99

E21
NW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Org. Identifier:
Formal name:
Monloc Identifier:
Monloc name:
Monloc type:
Monloc desc:
Huc code:
Drainagearea Units:
Contrib drainagearea units:
Longitude:
Horiz Acc measure:
Horiz Collection method:
Horiz coord refsys:
Vert measure units:
Vert accmeasure units:
Vertcollection method:
Vert coord refsys:
Aquifername:
Formation type:
Aquifer type:
Construction date:
Welldepth units:
Wellholedepth units:

KY5000000024962

Water Well
30-DEC-99

E20
NW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

EDR ID Number

USGS40000380388

Not Reported
Not Reported
37.1495463
24000
seconds
1320.00
20

US

9
9

TC4327237.23s Page A-17

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 1
Feet below Feet to
Date
Surface
Sealevel
------------------------------------------------1960-07-21 5.39

E22
NW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

KY WELLS

316549
37.14955
-82.70516
Not Reported
Unknown
KY5000000025186

Site type:
Constructi:

23
NW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Site type:
Constructi:

24
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

39540
37.15371
-82.70182
00018061
Domestic
KY5000000025466

Site type:
Constructi:

Site type:
Constructi:

KY5000000025466

Water Well
07-SEP-90

KY WELLS

267893
37.14955
-82.7096
00058596
Domestic
KY5000000025178

KY5000000025317

Water Well
09-AUG-91

KY WELLS

25
NW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Water Well
30-DEC-99

KY WELLS

41844
37.15122
-82.70544
00019270
Domestic
KY5000000025317

KY5000000025186

KY5000000025178

Water Well
13-SEP-02

TC4327237.23s Page A-18

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation

Database

F26
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

KY WELLS

33363
37.15316
-82.7046
00006625
Domestic
KY5000000025430

Site type:
Constructi:

F27
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Site type:
Constructi:

G28
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Site type:
Constructi:

G29
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

G30
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower

Site type:
Constructi:

KY5000000025486

Water Well
30-DEC-99

KY WELLS

73352
37.15399
-82.70349
Not Reported
Domestic
KY5000000025487

KY5000000025467

Water Well
05-OCT-98

KY WELLS

316553
37.15399
-82.70349
Not Reported
Unknown
KY5000000025486

KY5000000025430

Water Well
11-NOV-87

KY WELLS

248649
37.15377
-82.70371
00050549
Domestic
KY5000000025467

EDR ID Number

KY5000000025487

Water Well
30-DEC-99

FED USGS

USGS40000380432

TC4327237.23s Page A-19

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Org. Identifier:
Formal name:
Monloc Identifier:
Monloc name:
Monloc type:
Monloc desc:
Huc code:
Drainagearea Units:
Contrib drainagearea units:
Longitude:
Horiz Acc measure:
Horiz Collection method:
Horiz coord refsys:
Vert measure units:
Vert accmeasure units:
Vertcollection method:
Vert coord refsys:
Aquifername:
Formation type:
Aquifer type:
Construction date:
Welldepth units:
Wellholedepth units:

USGS-KY
USGS Kentucky Water Science Center
USGS-370914082421301
I29A0045
Well
Not Reported
05100201
Drainagearea value:
Not Reported
Contrib drainagearea:
Not Reported
Latitude:
-82.7034907
Sourcemap scale:
1
Horiz Acc measure units:
Interpolated from map
NAD83
Vert measure val:
feet
Vertacc measure val:
feet
Interpolated from topographic map
NGVD29
Countrycode:
Not Reported
Breathitt Formation
Not Reported
Not Reported
Welldepth:
Not Reported
Wellholedepth:
Not Reported

Not Reported
Not Reported
37.1539908
24000
seconds
1400.00
20

US

Not Reported
Not Reported

Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0

F31
NNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

KY WELLS

243791
37.15399
-82.70377
Not Reported
Domestic
KY5000000025485

Site type:
Constructi:

32
WSW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Lower
Location i:
North lati:
West longi:
Akgwa numb:
Primary us:
Site id:

Water Well
30-DEC-99

KY WELLS

35628
37.13788
-82.71377
00012573
Domestic
KY5000000024560

Site type:
Constructi:

KY5000000025485

KY5000000024560

Water Well
23-AUG-88

TC4327237.23s Page A-20

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance

A1
NNE
1/8 - 1/4 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:
Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

16133017890000
H
9
N
W
JENKINS WEST
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
569734
000
Not Reported
TRM
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
Not Reported
106534
H
37.14498
-82.69573
37.144985
-82.695729

EDR ID Number

OIL_GAS

KYOG11000120393

Kgs recno:
Number :
Fns:
Few:
Surf elev:
County:

139017
82
1826
1245
1653
LETCHER

Td:
Deepst pay:
Org wclass:
Cmpl date:
Plug afdvt:
Cuttings:
Plotsymbol:

0
341CLVD
UNC
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
0
TRM

Site id:

KYOG11000120393

A2
NNE
1/8 - 1/4 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:
Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

Database

OIL_GAS
16133017900000
H
9
N
W
JENKINS WEST
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
569733
000
Not Reported
TRM
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
Not Reported
106533
H
37.14505
-82.69574
37.145048
-82.695743

Kgs recno:
Number :
Fns:
Few:
Surf elev:
County:

139018
82
1803
1241
1654
LETCHER

Td:
Deepst pay:
Org wclass:
Cmpl date:
Plug afdvt:
Cuttings:
Plotsymbol:

0
341HURN
UNC
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
0
TRM

Site id:

KYOG11000120394

KYOG11000120394

TC4327237.23s Page A-21

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
Map ID
Direction
Distance

3
WNW
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Images:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:
Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

4
SSW
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Images:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:

Database

EDR ID Number

OIL_GAS

KYOG11000105654

16133006140000
Kgs recno:
123210
H
Number :
82
8
Fns:
2518
N
Few:
821
E
Surf elev:
1630
JENKINS WEST
County:
LETCHER
PIKE-LETCHER LAND COMPANY
KINZER, J W
1115
Td:
4465
341OHIO
Deepst pay:
340BBSI
Not Reported
Org wclass:
DEV
GAS
Cmpl date:
22-OCT-01
30-DEC-99
Plug afdvt:
Not Reported
Not Reported
Cuttings:
0
FDC
Plotsymbol:
GAS
92316
http://kgs.uky.edu/oilgasimages/0/0/1/2/3/R00123210/R00123210.djvu?djvuopts&thumbnails=yes&menu=yes&
zoom=page
V
37.143084
-82.702816
37.143186
-82.702696
Site id:
KYOG11000105654

OIL_GAS

KYOG11000105748

16133006150000
Kgs recno:
123304
H
Number :
82
8
Fns:
1148
S
Few:
184
E
Surf elev:
2032
JENKINS WEST
County:
LETCHER
PIKE-LETCHER LAND COMPANY
KINZER, J W
1116
Td:
4856
341OHIO
Deepst pay:
341OHIO
Not Reported
Org wclass:
EXT
GAS
Cmpl date:
27-OCT-01
30-DEC-99
Plug afdvt:
Not Reported
Not Reported
Cuttings:
0
FDC
Plotsymbol:
GAS
92317
http://kgs.uky.edu/oilgasimages/0/0/1/2/3/R00123304/R00123304.djvu?djvuopts&thumbnails=yes&menu=yes&
zoom=page
V
37.136486
-82.700631

TC4327237.23s Page A-22

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

37.136588
-82.700511

Site id:

B5
ENE
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:
Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

OIL_GAS
16133017360000
H
9
N
E
JENKINS WEST
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
569297
000
Not Reported
GAS
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
Not Reported
106141
H
37.14544
-82.69011
37.145438
-82.690112

Kgs recno:
Number :
Fns:
Few:
Surf elev:
County:

138478
82
1661
1976
1448
LETCHER

Td:
Deepst pay:
Org wclass:
Cmpl date:
Plug afdvt:
Cuttings:
Plotsymbol:

4113
341HURN
UNC
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
16168
GAS

Site id:

KYOG11000119988

B6
ENE
1/4 - 1/2 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:

KYOG11000105748

OIL_GAS
16133017370000
H
9
N
E
JENKINS WEST
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
569298
000
Not Reported
GAS
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
Not Reported
106142
H
37.14543
-82.69003

Kgs recno:
Number :
Fns:
Few:
Surf elev:
County:

138479
82
1663
1951
1448
LETCHER

Td:
Deepst pay:
Org wclass:
Cmpl date:
Plug afdvt:
Cuttings:
Plotsymbol:

3682
341CLVD
UNC
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
0
GAS

KYOG11000119988

KYOG11000119989

TC4327237.23s Page A-23

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

7
NE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Images:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:
Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

8
WNW
1/2 - 1 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Images:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:

37.145433
-82.690026

Site id:

KYOG11000119989

OIL_GAS

KYOG11000091067

16133003960000
Kgs recno:
102990
H
Number :
82
9
Fns:
1070
N
Few:
1710
E
Surf elev:
1633
JENKINS WEST
County:
LETCHER
EREX (SAM WRIGHT)
EQUITABLE RESOURCES EXPL, INC
KF1977
Td:
3418
337BRDN
Deepst pay:
332BIGL
70 MCFGPD
Org wclass:
DEV
O&G
Cmpl date:
26-MAR-91
30-DEC-99
Plug afdvt:
Not Reported
Not Reported
Cuttings:
644
DIL
Plotsymbol:
O&G
81334
http://kgs.uky.edu/oilgasimages/0/0/1/0/2/R00102990/R00102990.djvu?djvuopts&thumbnails=yes&menu=yes&
zoom=page
V
37.147061
-82.689198
37.147163
-82.689077
Site id:
KYOG11000091067

OIL_GAS

KYOG11000012178

16133008090000
Kgs recno:
12421
H
Number :
82
8
Fns:
1050
N
Few:
2375
W
Surf elev:
1587
JENKINS WEST
County:
LETCHER
ELKHORN COAL CO, INC
KENTUCKY WEST VIRGINIA GAS CO
1743
Td:
4399
344CORN
Deepst pay:
000
Not Reported
Org wclass:
DEV
D&A
Cmpl date:
23-DEC-80
30-DEC-99
Plug afdvt:
PA
Not Reported
Cuttings:
14306
FDC
Plotsymbol:
D&A
37657
http://kgs.uky.edu/oilgasimages/0/0/0/1/2/R00012421/R00012421.djvu?djvuopts&thumbnails=yes&menu=yes&
zoom=page
V
37.147116
-82.708519

TC4327237.23s Page A-24

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

37.147218
-82.708399

Site id:

C9
ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:
Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

OIL_GAS
16133018400000
H
9
N
E
JENKINS WEST
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
570817
000
Not Reported
TRM
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
Not Reported
107183
H
37.14715
-82.68517
37.147155
-82.685165

Kgs recno:
Number :
Fns:
Few:
Surf elev:
County:

139658
82
1036
534
1016
LETCHER

Td:
Deepst pay:
Org wclass:
Cmpl date:
Plug afdvt:
Cuttings:
Plotsymbol:

0
000
UNC
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
0
TRM

Site id:

KYOG11000121034

C10
ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:

KYOG11000012178

OIL_GAS
16133018410000
H
9
N
E
JENKINS WEST
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
570818
000
Not Reported
TRM
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
Not Reported
107184
H
37.14717
-82.68509

Kgs recno:
Number :
Fns:
Few:
Surf elev:
County:

139659
82
1031
512
1611
LETCHER

Td:
Deepst pay:
Org wclass:
Cmpl date:
Plug afdvt:
Cuttings:
Plotsymbol:

0
000
UNC
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
0
TRM

KYOG11000121034

KYOG11000121035

TC4327237.23s Page A-25

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

37.147168
-82.68509

Site id:

11
NNE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Images:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:
Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

OIL_GAS

KYOG11000091066

16133003950000
Kgs recno:
102989
H
Number :
82
2
Fns:
1025
S
Few:
2220
E
Surf elev:
1629
JENKINS WEST
County:
LETCHER
EREX (SAM WRIGHT)
EQUITABLE RESOURCES EXPL, INC
KF1976
Td:
3352
337BRDN
Deepst pay:
332BIGL
762 MCFGPD
Org wclass:
DEV
GAS
Cmpl date:
10-MAY-91
30-DEC-99
Plug afdvt:
Not Reported
Not Reported
Cuttings:
647
DIL
Plotsymbol:
GAS
81333
http://kgs.uky.edu/oilgasimages/0/0/1/0/2/R00102989/R00102989.djvu?djvuopts&thumbnails=yes&menu=yes&
zoom=page
V
37.152815
-82.69095
37.152917
-82.690829
Site id:
KYOG11000091066

D12
ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:

KYOG11000121035

OIL_GAS
16133018600000
H
10
N
W
JENKINS WEST
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
570820
341HURNL
Not Reported
GAS
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
Not Reported
107419
H
37.14835
-82.68132

Kgs recno:
Number :
Fns:
Few:
Surf elev:
County:

140440
82
600
588
1841
LETCHER

Td:
Deepst pay:
Org wclass:
Cmpl date:
Plug afdvt:
Cuttings:
Plotsymbol:

9615
000
DEV
31-JAN-11
Not Reported
16241
GAS

KYOG11000121777

TC4327237.23s Page A-26

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS

Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

37.148352
-82.681316

Site id:

D13
ENE
1/2 - 1 Mile
Api:
Letter:
Section:
Ns:
Ew:
Usgs quad:
Org farm:
Org oper:
Org wellno:
Tdfm:
Iof ip:
Org result:
Plug date:
Core:
Elog:
Kgs permit:
Bore type:
Rec lat27:
Rec lng27:
Rec lat83:
Rec lng83:

KYOG11000121777

OIL_GAS
16133018610000
H
10
N
W
JENKINS WEST
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY
570819
341CLVD
Not Reported
GAS
30-DEC-99
Not Reported
Not Reported
107418
H
37.14836
-82.68137
37.148462
-82.681249

Kgs recno:
Number :
Fns:
Few:
Surf elev:
County:

140441
82
597
572
1842
LETCHER

Td:
Deepst pay:
Org wclass:
Cmpl date:
Plug afdvt:
Cuttings:
Plotsymbol:

9337
000
DEV
31-JAN-11
Not Reported
16236
GAS

Site id:

KYOG11000121778

KYOG11000121778

TC4327237.23s Page A-27

GEOCHECK ® - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS
RADON
AREA RADON INFORMATION
Federal EPA Radon Zone for LETCHER County: 2
Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L.
: Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L.
: Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L.

Federal Area Radon Information for LETCHER COUNTY, KY
Number of sites tested: 2
Area

Average Activity

% <4 pCi/L

% 4-20 pCi/L

% >20 pCi/L

Living Area - 1st Floor
Living Area - 2nd Floor
Basement

0.900 pCi/L
Not Reported
2.400 pCi/L

100%
Not Reported
100%

0%
Not Reported
0%

0%
Not Reported
0%

TC4327237.23s Page A-28

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model (DEM)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
EDR acquired the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds
to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000-scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data
with consistent elevation units and projection.
Scanned Digital USGS 7.5’ Topographic Map (DRG)
Source: United States Geologic Survey
A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey topographic map. The map images
are made by scanning published paper maps on high-resolution scanners. The raster image
is georeferenced and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection.

HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
Flood Zone Data: This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2003 & 2011 from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Data depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA.
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetland Polygon Features
Source: Environmental Protection & Public Protection Cabinet
Telephone: 502-564-5174

HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION
AQUIFLOW R Information System
Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information
EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater
flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has
extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table
information.

GEOLOGIC INFORMATION
Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit
Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital
representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994).
STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national
Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil
survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation
of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO)
soil survey maps.
SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database
Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)
Telephone: 800-672-5559
SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Services, mapping
scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to
construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the
original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county
natural resource planning and management.

TC4327237.23s

Page PSGR-1

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED
LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS
FEDERAL WATER WELLS
PWS: Public Water Systems
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: 202-564-3750
Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at
least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources.
PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data
Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water
Telephone: 202-564-3750
Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after
August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS).
USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS)
This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface
water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater.
STATE RECORDS
Kentucky Water Well Records Database
Source: Kentucky Geological Survey
Telephone: 859-257-5500
Water Wells in Kentucky. Data from the Kentucky Ground Water Data Repository.

OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION
Oil and Gas Well Locations
Source: Kentucky Geological Survey
Telephone: 859-257-5500
Oil and gas well locations in the state of Kentucky

RADON
State Database: KY Radon
Source: Department of Public Health
Telephone: 502-564-4856
Radon Test Results
Area Radon Information
Source: USGS
Telephone: 703-356-4020
The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey.
The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at
private sources such as universities and research institutions.
EPA Radon Zones
Source: EPA
Telephone: 703-356-4020
Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor
radon levels.

OTHER
Airport Landing Facilities:
Private and public use landing facilities
Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656
Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater
Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Earthquake Fault Lines:
The fault lines displayed on EDR’s Topographic map are digitized quaternary faultlines, prepared
in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey
TC4327237.23s

Page PSGR-2

PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED

STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2010 Tele Atlas North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.

TC4327237.23s

Page PSGR-3

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

Appendix D: Topographic Maps

October 2015

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Paynes Gap
199 County Road 1417
Mayking, KY 41837
Inquiry Number: 4327237.25
June 16, 2015

EDR Historical Topographic Map Report

EDR Historical Topographic Map Report
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.s (EDR) Historical Topographic Map Report is designed to assist professionals in
evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDRs Historical Topographic Map Report
includes a search of a collection of public and private color historical topographic maps, dating back to the early 1900s.

Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO
WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they
be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the
information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2015 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map
of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks
used herein are the property of their respective owners.

Historical Topographic Map

→

N

TARGET QUAD
NAME:
POUND
MAP YEAR: 1914
SERIES:
SCALE:

15
1:62500

SITE NAME: Paynes Gap
ADDRESS: 199 County Road 1417
Mayking, KY 41837
LAT/LONG: 37.1421 / -82.6972

CLIENT:
Cardno TEC
CONTACT:
Erika Fuery
INQUIRY#:
4327237.25
RESEARCH DATE: 06/16/2015

Historical Topographic Map

→

N

TARGET QUAD
NAME:
JENKINS WEST
MAP YEAR: 1954
SERIES:
SCALE:

7.5
1:24000

SITE NAME: Paynes Gap
ADDRESS: 199 County Road 1417
Mayking, KY 41837
LAT/LONG: 37.1421 / -82.6972

CLIENT:
Cardno TEC
CONTACT:
Erika Fuery
INQUIRY#:
4327237.25
RESEARCH DATE: 06/16/2015

Historical Topographic Map

→

N

TARGET QUAD
NAME:
JENKINS WEST
MAP YEAR: 1979
PHOTOREVISED FROM :1954
SERIES:
7.5
SCALE:
1:24000

SITE NAME: Paynes Gap
ADDRESS: 199 County Road 1417
Mayking, KY 41837
LAT/LONG: 37.1421 / -82.6972

CLIENT:
Cardno TEC
CONTACT:
Erika Fuery
INQUIRY#:
4327237.25
RESEARCH DATE: 06/16/2015

Historical Topographic Map

→

N

TARGET QUAD
NAME:
JENKINS WEST
MAP YEAR: 1992
SERIES:
SCALE:

7.5
1:24000

SITE NAME: Paynes Gap
ADDRESS: 199 County Road 1417
Mayking, KY 41837
LAT/LONG: 37.1421 / -82.6972

CLIENT:
Cardno TEC
CONTACT:
Erika Fuery
INQUIRY#:
4327237.25
RESEARCH DATE: 06/16/2015

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

Appendix E: Aerial Photographs

October 2015

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Paynes Gap
199 County Road 1417
Mayking, KY 41837
Inquiry Number: 4327237.34
June 23, 2015

The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s
professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo
per decade.

When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE
ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more
information contact your EDR Account Executive.

Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.

Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO
WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report AS IS. Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they
be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the
information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2015 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map
of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks
used herein are the property of their respective owners.

Date EDR Searched Historical Sources:
Aerial PhotographyJune 23, 2015

Target Property:
199 County Road 1417
Mayking, KY 41837

Year

Scale

Details

Source

1952

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: April 08, 1952

EDR

1952

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: April 08, 1952

EDR

1952

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: April 08, 1952

EDR

1961

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: April 19, 1961

EDR

1961

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: April 19, 1961

EDR

1975

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000'

Flight Date: May 01, 1975

EDR

1975

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000'

Flight Date: May 01, 1975

EDR

1979

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000'

Flight Date: December 04, 1979

EDR

1979

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=1000'

Flight Date: December 04, 1979

EDR

1988

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: March 28, 1988

EDR

1988

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: March 28, 1988

EDR

1988

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: March 28, 1988

EDR

1995

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: March 24, 1995

EDR

1995

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: March 24, 1995

EDR

1995

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=750'

Flight Date: March 24, 1995

EDR

2000

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

DOQQ - acquisition dates: April 05, 2000

USGS/DOQQ

2000

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

DOQQ - acquisition dates: April 05, 2000

USGS/DOQQ

2000

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

DOQQ - acquisition dates: April 05, 2000

USGS/DOQQ

2000

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

DOQQ - acquisition dates: April 05, 2000

USGS/DOQQ

4327237.34
2

Year

Scale

Details

Source

2000

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

DOQQ - acquisition dates: April 05, 2000

USGS/DOQQ

2005

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2005

USDA/NAIP

2005

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2005

USDA/NAIP

2005

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2005

USDA/NAIP

2005

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2005

USDA/NAIP

2005

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2005

USDA/NAIP

2008

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2008

USDA/NAIP

2008

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2008

USDA/NAIP

2008

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2008

USDA/NAIP

2008

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2008

USDA/NAIP

2008

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2008

USDA/NAIP

2009

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2009

USDA/NAIP

2009

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2009

USDA/NAIP

2009

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2009

USDA/NAIP

2009

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2009

USDA/NAIP

2009

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2009

USDA/NAIP

2010

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2010

USDA/NAIP

2010

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2010

USDA/NAIP

2010

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2010

USDA/NAIP

2010

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2010

USDA/NAIP

2010

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2010

USDA/NAIP

2011

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2011

USDA/NAIP

2011

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2011

USDA/NAIP

4327237.34
3

Year

Scale

Details

Source

2011

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2011

USDA/NAIP

2011

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2011

USDA/NAIP

2011

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2011

USDA/NAIP

2012

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2012

USDA/NAIP

2012

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2012

USDA/NAIP

2012

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2012

USDA/NAIP

2012

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2012

USDA/NAIP

2012

Aerial Photograph. Scale: 1"=500'

Flight Year: 2012

USDA/NAIP

4327237.34
4

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1952
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1952
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1952
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1961
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1961
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1975
= 1000'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1975
= 1000'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1979
= 1000'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1979
= 1000'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1988
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1988
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1988
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1995
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1995
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

1995
= 750'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2000
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2000
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2000
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2000
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2000
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2005
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2005
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2005
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2005
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2005
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2008
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2008
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2008
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2008
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2008
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2009
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2009
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2009
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2009
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2009
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2010
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2010
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2010
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2010
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2010
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2011
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2011
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2011
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2011
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2011
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2012
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2012
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2012
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2012
= 500'

INQUIRY #:
YEAR:

4327237.34

2012
= 500'

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

Appendix F: City Directories

Federal Bureau of Prisons
Payne Gap Site Phase I ESA

October 2015

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Paynes Gap
199 County Road 1417
Mayking, KY 41837
Inquiry Number: 4327237.27
June 17, 2015

The EDR-City Directory Image Report

Environmental Data Resources Inc

6 Armstrong Road
Shelton, CT 06484
800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION
Executive Summary
Findin